Eric Clapton’s disastrous experiences after taking the COVID vaccine jab VIDEO + Ben Fulford Report 12 Sept. 2021: COVID, dysfunctional governments + the critical situation the world is facing VIDEO – 16 Sept. 2021

By WindlanderWhite Dragon Society112 Comments

Benjamin Fulford Report 12 September 2021

Due to the critical situation the world is facing we have put up a special report discussing why western governments have become dysfunctional. This is NOT part of the upcoming paid Q&A videos, it is strictly information Ben has deemed to be important and made available for free to everyone.

video: go here:

Comments are only available for readers with an active subscription. Please subscribe to view comments.



Benjamin Fulford

Recent Posts


Eric Clapton’s disasterous experiences after taking the COVID vaccine jab VIDEO

GOD on COVID: Eric Clapton discusses his “Disastrous” Vaccine Experience.
Marcus Singletary Dot Com

 #Guitar Legend #EricClapton performed with the Yardbirds, John Mayall, Cream, Blind Faith, and Derek and the Dominos before embarking on a successful solo career. Here’s why he never thought he would play the instrument again after receiving the AstraZeneca Vaccine
Please subscribe to this channel! Visit for more info.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Maurice Kirk: Faces 4 Year Prison Term on 3rd Sept Exeter Crown Court – Gross Abuse of Process 06 Aug. 2021

see more: Arrested for Road Rage with a Carving nife?




The cps man, Mr Rendle or Randle, played the  road incident’s nasty police man’s body cam  to himself while live in court in virtual mode, from some office in the UK, BUT neither magistrates nor I were aloud to see or HEAR it……a gross abuse of process which is why I said, “right I have heard enough of this nonsense and picked my papers, consisting of the days daily Telegraph and stomped out of court threatening to attend the 3rd September hearing when the ‘gloves will be off”

and so the South Wales Police perverse conduct continues unchecked

Written by an observer today

 MAURICE WALKS OUT OF COURT – Today at the 23 minute Exeter magistrates ct hearing the prevarications and dictates and railroading from the court, along with the total ignoring of Maurice’s explanations and requests, led to Maurice leaving the court during the hearing, and who could blame him?

Disclosure of the charges facts was denied to Maurice [CPS denied giving disclosure as it is believed it would “undermine their case”] – only a summary was available – which Maurice disputed. In other words: Maurice is disallowed the very details of the case[s] against him, even the police-worn body worn video camera footage is denied!!] and what he was arrested for.There were 3 charges:

1] “possession of a bladed article” [large kitchen knife] on 2 June on M5 motorway [CPS prosecuting “Chris Rendell said this was amenable for a summary trial] – the clerk then said the matter would be dealt with at magistrates court level, unless Maurice wished otherwise.

Maurice was then asked did he wish for the matter to be dealt with at magistrates and he declined stating “jury trial”. Maurice was asked time and again over the 23 minute hearing would he be getting a legal rep., which, ultimately, was left unanswered as the question of 2 years worth of costs regarding the case whereby he was a acquitted recently is still in limbo and not dealt with – completely unfair and possibly very illegal.

Legal types demand paying to represent one and hardly ever come at a reasonable and proper price – most accused defendants are not millionaires and legal reps. charge unearthly amounts and if someone in the halls of power decides theyre withholding the defendants costs for a recent case then paying expensive legal reps. at a later date [such as this case] is put in question.

All is carefully thought out by these public servants – and not always in the favour of citizens such as Maurice Kirk.Alarmingly, the 2nd + 3rd charges [“driving his car without a valid licence” and “valid insurance”]  have already been dropped, and   Maurice was asked how he would plea – he said he was unable to as,[with disclosure by the CPS being denied also]  he was “a little confused” as Taunton magistrates had already “quashed those charges” and, what’s more, “last year the police dropped those same charges” too.

The astonishing resurrecting of these 2 charges in this present court case surely shows something clearly wrong, and shows ultimately how far the prosecution will bend the rules regarding prosecuting someone when those very charges have been dropped BY 2 SEPARATE AUTHORITIES.

Regarding the charges Maurice stated he was never given a “producer” by the police on the 2 June [to produce his documents at a police station within the time period allotted] so it seems that, oddly, the CPS have re livened the “no licence + no insurance” charges after they already had been dropped merely  to bolster their “knife possession” case and help Maurice into jail yet again via another sentence. This obviously highly questionable adding of these 2 already deleted charges surely needs serious scrutiny into them by honest responsible parties.

South Wales Police instigated again, of course.

Taunton, a month ago……. my car is confiscated as my having ‘no driving licence’, later returned to me and told to drive away but the crowd of police refused to examine the kitchen knife I told them I had in my car!

I had told the Exeter Magistrates, to day, I had only returned to England at a cost of over £1000 just to plead if I was given a copy of the police body cam of the incident then I would know how to plead

I was refused as did the court refuse my tendered my defense statement explaining why I had good reason of having, not one but two kitchen knives in my vehicle.

Incidentally, having just won last month’s jury trial, brought by the South Wales Police concerning three charges, sending suspect anthrax and heroin from my Cardiff prison cell to Members of Parliament, it was of no surprise to be told my costs awarded, to cover £4000 out of pocket expenses, was a mere £237 because I had not asked for Legal Aid!!!!!!!!!!!

Now stopped by 17 police in routine police road check of vehicles they refused to examine the knives I was carrying in my car and told to drive away. Now work that one out!

The 3rd September, now there is a memorable date!


Ironic, post MP stalking acquittal?

This order you sent to me appears to be only a partially filled in T2020177 costs order for only £257 allowed for my two years of ‘out of pocket expenses’


I must have a fully filled in costs order, please, for the RCJ’s  MoJ department or it will reject it and especially as the latest farce in Exeter magistrates court yesterday appears to be a repeat performance and heading down the same route.

Welsh courts, of course, never ever gave me a penny of costs over 30 years in the south Wales Police’s 40 odd maliciously brought failed prosecutions as I am English so all this costs jargon now, at my age, is quite a ‘minefield’ to me 

The 2012/13 change in the rules on Legal Aid, due to lawyers etc fleecing the taxpayer as unaccountable, indicates that had I applied for it at commencement of prosecution, two years ago I would have been reimbursed for the £5000 odd  ‘out of pocket’ costs.

Remember, my alleged sending from my Cardiff prison cell ‘white powder’, believed to be anthrax, to an MP and John Graham Esq and heroin to Alun Cairns MP, I would have been reimbursed the £5000 odd in full but Operation Bridger, Operation Chalice and the South Wales Police unlawfully blocked all that.
It stinks, does it not?

Maurice J Kirk BVSc  

Tel 07708586202               

Maurice,Do you want to win up to £5,000 this month?We are giving you the opportunity to do just that, by launching our biggest super draw of the year so far – Our Annual Conservative Summer Draw.
Ironic, my Conservative MP, despite Exeter Crown Court’s order to respond, continues to ignore my letters for help re G4S run HMP Parc robbery of my ‘trading in machine guns’ substantive civil claim legal papers


Maurice Kirk <> 11:03 (20 minutes ago)  

I suspect fraud and ask for advice from Law society following the theft of my £5000 by the above purported Hatton Garden fronted money laundering  lawyer gang

This email was sent to the ‘money laundering’ department’ of the Law Society

extract from today’s letter to Bristol County Court

Good morning,  I have spent more hours today on this following the recent judges order to re submit N244 application and fee.
I spoke to James, of payment dept,   just now reluctant to take my money as I have received, already, a sealed 25th July 2021 set aside receipt for hearing.
Last time at your court you made me pay £700 for a court fee that was, I said at the time, ultra vires and it took months to get my money back with multiple visits to the court  office with no apology
Exactly the same games I have experienced with 1Cf03361 (machine guns conspiracy) and T2020177 (Taunton MP conspiracy) etc CASES ALL FLOWING FROM SOUTH wALES pOLICE criminal conduct that successive courts and my Taunton MP deliberately ignore
Who in London in Operation Bridger and Operation Chalice is behind this decade of criminal conduct or do I have to join the devil worshipping brethren?


Dear Maurice J Kirk,

Thank you for contacting The Law Society, the independent professional body for solicitors in England and Wales.

The Law Society cannot investigate complaints about its members and cannot become involved in individual cases or offer legal advice.

If you have complained to your solicitor about poor service and you are not satisfied with their response, you can contact the Legal Ombudsman on 0300 555 0333, or by visiting their website:

Make A Complaint | Legal Ombudsman

If you have complained to your solicitor about breaching the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Code of Conduct and you are not satisfied with their response, you can report them to the SRA on 0370 606 2555, or by visiting their website:

SRA | Reporting an individual or firm | Solicitors Regulation Authority

For further guidance on making a complaint about a solicitor, please refer to our website:

We trust that the above information has been helpful.

We value your feedback – take our quick survey

Kind regards,
Abid Rahman
Customer Services OfficerMembership ServicesThe Law Society113 Chancery Lane,London,WC2A 1PL

Tel: 020 7242 1222 green – keep it on screen​
This email and any attachment(s) is intended for the addressee only. Any unauthorised use including further processing, for example; printing, forwarding, storage or copying is not allowed.
If you are not the intended recipient, please let the sender know as soon as possible and then delete all copies from your e-mail account.
Please note the sender is not authorised to conclude any contract on behalf of the Law Society by email.




Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

CAMPAIGN OPPOSING POLICE SURVEILLANCE: UPDATE: The Kate Wilson Case – Exposing Institutional Sexism of #Spycops – 27 April 2021

 Campaign Opposing Police Surveillance

The Kate Wilson Case – Exposing Institutional Sexism of Spycops

Kate Wilson outside the Royal Courts of Justice, 3 October 2018

Kate Wilson outside the Royal Courts of Justice

As Kate Wilson’s epic case makes its way through the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, we delve in the legal arguments being made and their significance for everyone affected by the spycops scandal.

For the last ten years, Kate Wilson has been on a dogged fight for justice. Deceived into to a relationship by undercover police officer Mark Kennedy, she wanted answers.

Part of a group of eight women also deceived into relationships by spycops, she was granted an apology by the Metropolitan Police who sought to brush them off. However, where others were forced to settle, a single door was left open for Kate – the notoriously secretive Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT). It was a small chance, but she went for it anyway.

This week, her unique battle finally made it to court, coinciding with the second set of hearings in the Undercover Policing Inquiry, to which it provides a fascinating counterpoint. There has been some excellent media coverage of the case, highlighting evidence that has coming out, which we will not repeat here (The GuardianStandardMorning StarThe Canary) This article will explore Kate’s actual legal claim – and some of the surrounding context – in more depth.


Kate has taking on the Metropolitan Police and exposing its institutional sexism. As anyone who has dealt with the police knows only too well, she was met with all the usual obstruction tactics. A full account of these is a tale in itself, and would take a book to recount properly. The short account is that this backfired on them, as it only made Kate more determined.

It is already common ground between all the parties that the relationships were unlawful and should never have happened. However it is the impact of the relationship that the Tribunal is, in part, being asked to address.

At first, the police claimed that because they had admitted that these relationships happened, the Tribunal did not need to consider any evidence about them; they could keep secret just who knew, and how they knew, about the various spycops’ sexual relationships. Kate successfully argued against that – the Tribunal could not possibly determine the extent to which her human rights were breached without looking at the evidence.

When that didn’t work, the police switched tactics – using outright denial, twisting and changing their story, ignoring court orders and abusing legal processes (for example, serving things late or chaotically). They admitted things but then withdrew their admissions, showing utter contempt for the court. As one observer put it, it was a ‘defence by malicious incompetence’.

That lengthy process took more than two years and priced Kate out of legal representation. Undeterred, she took on the case herself and continued fighting, later gaining a team of pro bono lawyers from Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. It has culminated in this week’s hearing.

This case is about wider issues than just the relationships of one disgraced undercover. It is about challenging the culture that led to the undercovers abusing women in this way, while their bosses turned a blind eye – the institutional sexism at the heart of their system.

It is also emblematic of a wider disdain for the rights of people who engage in protest. These units viewed everyone politically active as extremists and this viewpoint allowed them to casually strip them of their privacy. The National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU, 1999-2011) and the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS, 1968-2008) defined extremism so broadly that the notion of ‘collateral intrusion’ on innocent people adjacent to true targets became meaningless – almost everyone was considered fair game in their world.


However, just as this is not a standard court case, this is not your standard court either. The case is being held in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) – a body created under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), which since 2000 has been the framework for undercover policing including the authorisation regime.

The IPT does not try cases as such, rather it looks at human rights claims arising under RIPA with a view to improving the regime. Importantly, however, it can make findings of fact.

The IPT is a secretive court, that makes its own rules, though it is clearly a judicial proceeding. The IPT is so secret that it won’t even say how many cases it hears, but it has numbered in the thousands and is only known to have ruled against the state once.

Although the IPT tries to follow established practice, if it wants, it can hold hearings entirely in secret, and a barrister is appointed to kind-of-represent the interests of the person bringing the claim. The person making the claim often never sees any of the evidence, and it is left entirely to the IPT’s discretion whether it even takes up a case.

The strength of Kate’s case – and her perseverance – allowed her to turn much of that on its head. The disclosure she has received is genuinely unique. The police have been forced by the IPT to turn over a great deal of evidence to her, including Kennedy’s own pocket notebooks and contact logs, and previously confidential NPOIU documents.

Days 1 and 2

The hearings opened with Charlotte Kilroy QC speaking on behalf of Kate Wilson. For two and half days she spoke solidly, taking the Tribunal through the evidence and multiple legal arguments.

Held at the Royal Courts of Justice and broadcast live online, the scene was striking, with boxes of evidence and arguments piled so high most could not see the faces of the three judges – Baron Boyd of DuncansbyProfessor Graham Zellick and Lady Justice Natalie Lieven.


Under the terms of RIPA, the IPT looks at human rights violations by the likes of the police and Secret Service (MI5). Any claim must be framed in that context.

Her case has many angles. The most prominent one is that she was deceived into a relationship by Mark Kennedy and this was a gross breach of her rights. Even the police have accepted this – that the relationship was breach of her Article 3 human rights, her right not to be subject to inhumane and degrading treatment or torture. This is an absolute right that no circumstances can justify breaching.

 Lord Boyd of Duncansby

Lord Boyd of Duncansby

With that also came a breach of her private life and that of her family and friends (Article 8). Kennedy made himself an integral part of her life for several years, furthering the abuse of her trust. Central to this is not the degree to which she and Kennedy had a relationship, but the degree to which this was encouraged and condoned by the unit that ran him – the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU) – and their reasons for doing this.

However, Kate’s case is not just about Kennedy. Multiple undercovers intruded and reported on her over a decade of political activism. They too interfered in her private life, and also her right to protest.

She and her friends, and the other women deceived into relationships, were being targeted because they were exercising their rights to free speech and assembly (Articles 10 & 11). Once you look at the bigger picture, it becomes impossible to separate the relationship from the reason why Kennedy and the other undercovers were in her life in the first place.

This is where we get into the much wider aspects of the case, that the entire targeting of her was part and parcel of that abuse, and Kennedy’s spying has to be seen in the context of all those other undercovers. When you look at things this way, questions emerge not just about Kennedy’s operation but about all of the NPOIU’s activities.


Under the European Convention on Human Rights, most of these rights are ‘qualified rights’. There are no possible exceptions when it comes to Article 3 rights (freedom from torture etc) but there are some for Articles 8, 10 and 11. This means governments are allowed to interfere with those rights, but must provide some justification for doing so.

For that justification to be lawful, it must be shown to be both necessary and proportionate. Kate has challenged the police to provide evidence that these undercover operations were necessary and proportionate. She argues that if they cannot provide such evidence, these operations may not have been lawful at all. Thus Kate’s case includes the assertion that the authorisations of Kennedy’s deployment, and thus the entire operation, not just aspects of it, were unlawful.

And further, when you factor in the interference with so many rights, there emerges a case that the legislation under which those authorisations were made failed as a reliable legal framework protecting individual’s rights.

Finally, Kate has pointed out the institutional sexism that lies at the heart of the police. This is not the sole cause of her human rights being breached, but has certainly exacerbated them, for her and all the other women wrongfully targeted for relationships. She is arguing that the way abuses discriminated against women should be taken into account when considering the other breaches, and a finding made on it as well. (Article 14: protection from discrimination).

As part of this legal argument there is an important concept of ‘positive obligation’. A substantive part of the legal discussion at the hearings is the degree to which they police were required to be proactive in protecting Kate from these violations of her rights. How this plays out varies from right to right, but comes down to who knew and what was the regime in place to protect her – and that means looking at the evidence around training and guidance, and structures of oversight and supervision, including the degree to which there was an embedded culture of sexism within the units which turned accepted the acts of Kennedy and his colleagues.


Assistant Commissioner Sir Stephen House

Assistant Commissioner Sir Stephen House

There have already been some notable successes in this case. One of these was an acknowledgement that to understand the severity of the human rights breaches the facts needed to be known.

At first the police tried to control this narrative and keep hold of the material, rather than releasing it to Kate. They produced a statement (signed off by Assistant Commissioner Sir Stephen House) giving their interpretation, based on a limited review of material they had gathered.

The statement was readily debunked as ineffective and flawed. Kate kept up the pressure, saying it was not good enough, and the IPT agreed. Bit by bit she forced the the police to surrender material to her. First came contact and decision logs for Kennedy’s case and internal reviews of his operation. Then authorisations for the undercovers and NPOIU intelligence reports.

Even these small samples were damning and opened the door for further requests. Unsurprisingly, the police did their best to prevent this disclosure. They ignored Tribunal orders, or deliberately misinterpreted them.

Another tactic was to make concessions on the case, claiming that meant there was no need for evidence. When that did not work, they withdrew the concessions, trying to blame their previous lawyers for having made admissions. It was disruptive and frustrating, but they underestimated Kate’s tenacity.

She was able to show that it was not just Kennedy she needed answers about, as there was a pattern of intrusion and spying on her life. For instance, there was the question about how Kennedy’s undercover predecessor ‘Rod Richardson’ had spied on her. Or how much did Kennedy’s contemporaries ‘Marco Jacobs‘ and ‘Lynn Watson‘ know about his many relationships?

This brought more disclosure, about other undercovers, such as Jim Boyling and Rod Richardson, who had spied on her as early as 1999 – years before Kennedy was deployed.

From all the material, it was obvious the right to privacy meant nothing to them; Kennedy filtered nothing out and his bosses appear to have said nothing. It was also painfully clear from the logs that anyone reading them would have been well aware that Kennedy and Kate were in a relationship.

As Kate puts it:

Disclosed #spycops cover logs contain more than 30 references to Kennedy staying with me in my parents’ home, moving in together, and time alone, not protest, or campaigning or crime, just ordinary activities. Kennedy’s handler records that Kennedy gives my name as his “next of kin”.

The evidence, particularly the contact logs that document Kennedy’s continual reports to his ‘handler’ officer, are a goldmine of information about these operations. Although limited, and hampered by the fact that much material (particularly from the key period when Kennedy began the relationship) has apparently been lost or deliberately destroyed, they nonetheless give useful insight into the units.


It has been possible to build up a bigger picture using Kate’s own memories and those of her fellow campaigners, and other women targeted by the spycops.

NPOIU officer known as Rod Richardson

NPOIU officer ‘Rod Richardson’, Mark Kennedy’s predecessor, also spied on Kate Wilson

Kennedy had one cover officer, known by the cipher EN31, for the entirety of his deployment. The police have admitted that this cover officer must have known about Kennedy’s many relationships. However, EN31 denies this and has refused to cooperate with the police in this case.

It has become abundantly clear that there were multiple officers in close proximity to Kennedy, who were aware of his activities. Though there is no explicit mention of relationships in any of the documents disclosed, anyone reading them would have been immediately aware that something was going on.

As the picture built up, other players came into view: the heads of the NPOIU undercover units and their deputies; cover officers for other undercovers such as Lynn Watson; Nottinghamshire Special Branch.

According to Sir Stephen House, none of these people knew anything. But the contact logs and other material demonstrate otherwise. For instance, it was policy for these logs to be sent to the unit’s managers every week. They were written to be read by others – including messages left in the logs for the Senior Investigating Officer to read. This puts the lie to the police’s position that Kennedy was a ‘rogue’ operator – it is clear, as Kennedy himself told Parliament, that they knew what he was doing at all times.

Kate said:

The cover logs are damning. The Police try to claim senior officers didn’t read the logs. That is not borne out by the evidence – throughout the logs there are personal notes to the Senior Investigating Officer, including the problem of me wanting to meet MK’s mum.

Likewise, part of the police case has been that the undercover unit was a silo, kept discrete from even the rest of the NPOIU. But, again, this is demonstrably untrue.

And what of all the other material? The logs and intelligence reports show that campaigners’ relationships were regularly reported as a matter of course by the undercover and it was deemed important enough to be circulated onward? Yet not one of Kennedy or the other undercovers’ relationships appear in the material. The more one looks at that side of things, the more it is obvious something was amiss. It’s hard to be definitive, but it appears that any such material was being suppressed – ‘sanitised’, as they put it.

As Kate’s barrister, Charlotte Kilroy QC, argues there was a cultural practice of ignoring relationships deeply embedded in the unit, treating them as a given though not to be mentioned.

The police have relied heavily on there being a supposed prohibition on sexual relationships, but are unable to point to any concrete proof of this, other than general regulations against criminality and a duty to respect human rights. They claim that because they now accept sexual relationships are an abuse of Article 3, that means that must have always been the case. Plus, they argue, there are a some bits of circumstantial evidence in their favour, such as the denials of an undercover trainer, and a supposed role-playing exercise in the training given to undercovers.

Kilroy has ably unwound their dubious logic. For example, while there was an explicit prohibition on using drugs for the period in question, no equivalent guidance existed for sexual relationships (since the undercover policing scandal broke ten years ago, a more explicit prohibition on sexual relationships has been made police policy). And it didn’t appear to apply to the NPOIU’s sister unit, the Special Demonstration Squad, which spoke of ‘fleeting, disastrous relationships’ forming part of an undercover’s ‘tradecraft’.

Kate said:

The Tradecraft Manual shows that although it may have been suggested that #spycops sexual relationships should be “avoided” it was not said that they should never happen. Viewed alongside what happened in practice, relationships were not fleeting, although they were disastrous.

The importance of this was it showed there was no real prohibition on sexual relationships worth its salt within the undercover policing units.


Kilroy also set out the cultural context around Kate’s case in two ways.

The first of these entailed exploring the obvious parallels with other undercovers’ deceitful relationships. Clearly both Lynn Watson and Marco Jacobs knew of Kennedy’s relationships, and Jacobs had his own. There seems to have been a culture of accepting these relationships, viewing them as unremarkable. Plus, there was a certain amount of cultural crossover between the Special Demonstration Squad and the NPOIU, the former unit clearly having a culture where relationships was permitted.

Kate said:

Police deny widespread indifference or encouragement for MK’s sexual relationships. But they also acknowledge that, by its very nature, a culture of sexism may not get written down. They have not investigated or presented any #spycops bosses as to be witnesses.

The second of Kilroy’s examinations of the culture concerned the ways in which the structures of these undercover policing units made them institutionally sexist. There were no proper monitoring systems. Training was inadequate, and supposedly relied on oral prohibitions, for which evidence is limited, to put it politely.

There was no acknowledgement that prolonged deployments increased the risk of such dishonest relationships occurring, as well as the likely impact on the women deceived in this way (for example, pregnancy, or lies about intentions). The spycops were content to manipulate these women, disregarding their dignity. The fact that these relationships were known about for many years in the SDS itself reveals a discriminatory attitude towards women and their rights.


Charlotte Kilroy QC

Charlotte Kilroy QC

Kilroy also criticised the regime under which undercover police operations were authorised. According to RIPA and related regulations, senior officers had to sign off the deployments. Deployments had to be justified, necessary and proportionate. Her line of attack was to ably demonstrate that the arguments for necessity in the authorisations simply were not met and inadequate.

The first authorisations made out for Mark Kennedy did not name specific individuals or organisations to target, as they should have. Instead, he was sent into Nottingham’s Sumac Centre, a community centre used by a wide variety of groups – it was a fishing trip to gather ‘pre-emptive intelligence’. A list of groups which used the centre is provided in in support, but is clearly spurious. It includes what is described as the ‘extreme left wing’ Stop the War Coalition.

Kilroy was able to demonstrate the excessive breadth of the authorisations, which essentially deemed everyone a potential target for spying.

Kate said:

Stop the War is listed, described as a “traditionally extreme left wing” movement. It then talks about the massive demonstrations in London attended by millions of people and peaceful demonstrations that took place in Nottingham. This is what #spycops target as “extreme”.

Once in place, the authorisations were self-perpetuating justifications – Mark collected intelligence and once that started that was deemed sufficient in itself. There were no objectives by which it could be measured, something the police’s own internal reports acknowledge. Mission-creep became a feature, his deployment extending to cover campaigns across Europe that had no bearing on the UK. Criminality was no longer the main reason given but replaced by purely policing resource arguments. Justifications move on to merely protecting his ‘legend’.

Within the authorisations, when it came to ‘collateral intrusion’ of spying on those around activists, anyone involved, however peripherally, in protest or campaigning was considered a legitimate target, and the focus is on privacy in the strictest, data protection sense. What it did not do was consider the kinds of friendships Kennedy was forming, and just how intrusive the operation would be for those whose lives he invaded and reported back on.


As such, the important consideration of collateral intrusion (an Article 8 ‘right to private and family life’ consideration in itself) was brushed aside, because almost everyone Kennedy came into contact with could be regarded as a target. The authorisations were based on calling everyone an extremist rather than particularising. There was no proper assessment, as required for it to be a justified deployment. As one of the judges put it, in the standard authorisations form the section for considering on collateral intrusion became an Article 8 box-ticking exercise.

Many of the authorisations were misleading and some contained lies. For example, in one of them, Kate is described as being a main organiser of a housing cooperative which was named as a target. This was utterly false, and the NPOIU officers signing off on it would have known this. She is only included as a named target when she was living in Spain and Kennedy wanted to maintain contact with her.

The authorisations show no pressing social need, being about pre-emptive intelligence gathering without clear targets or goal. It was an operation for its own sake, and became increasingly so as time went on. No proper assessment was made about the levels of interference that were actually required or justifiable. This is something that an internal report from the Serious Organised Crime Agency (into Kennedy and the NPOIU) was critical of.

This leads to an important legal point: once it becomes an undercover deployment for its own sake, with no specific outcomes, how can it be capable of meeting the criteria of being ‘necessary’? The ‘necessity’ condition must be met for such operations to be lawful. Kate’s argument is that it can be shown these operations were not necessary and therefore none of the Mark Kennedy authorisations, and possibly other undercover deployments, were lawful.

Day 3


We began by returning to look at Articles 10 and 11 (free speech, and assembly), at the request of the judges. This pair of rights are often combined in this context as a general ‘right to protest’.

Kate is arguing that the extensive targeting of her over a decade amounted to not just an engagement of those rights but, more seriously, an actual interference with them.

This part of the case is not just about Kennedy, although he played a significant role in what can be termed ‘interference’, but the degree to which she was under surveillance and the impact it had on her. The basic argument is the State had no business monitoring her because of her political views and activities. It does not matter whether or not she was aware of the exact details of this surveillance, it still had an impact on her.

Kate’s barrister, Charlotte Kilroy QC, pointed to European case law that supported this position, recognising that extensive police surveillance in itself has a ‘chilling effect’ on protest.

As one of the judges, Professor Zellick, put it:

‘You might say the state has no business spying on the legitimate political activities of its opponents.’

The evidence allowed Kate to go further. By comparing her own memories with the contact logs, she could identify moments were she was being deliberately manipulated to meet Kennedy’s agenda (and that of his bosses) . He persuaded her to go to events that she was not interested in, or talked her out of others. In this he was leaning heavily on the closeness of their relationship and the trust she had placed in him.

She is still left wondering now just how much his influence affected her:

It is unchallenged in my witness statement that MK did influence and change my political views. #spycops were deeply manipulative and we were very close and he may have influenced me in ways I don’t even know. How many of the decisions and beliefs I held back then were my own?

Then there is the impact that the discovery has had on Kate and her comrades. She has gone from being deeply committed to political organising, to struggling to engage with people and large gatherings. She has become cut off from some groups as a result of her anxieties, which Kennedy and his cover officer knew affected her, which have now grown. Other groups were destroyed under the weight of the Kennedy revelations.

Kate explained:

I now find it very hard to engage with politics that reminds me of MK. The impact of betrayal by MK and other #spycops was devastating for the political groups and communities. Even if I wanted to continue, many of those wonderful projects, groups and movements no longer exist.

At this point one of the judges asked about the fact that some of the movements Kate was involved in were aware of the dangers of state surveillance. Kilroy responded that a concern was one thing, but what Kennedy exposed was the sheer extent the police were willing to go to gather information on political views.

Things were far worse than what the campaigners feared – in effect, their paranoia was nothing compared to the actual reality. And because it only came to light accidentally, it means the police cannot be trusted to be honest, to root out misbehaviour in their units.

So having argued that there Articles 10 and 11 were engaged, and breached, the next step is again to consider whether the State could make the case that this was justified. The police have already conceded that the sexual relationship with Kennedy did in itself interfere with Kate’s Articles 10 rights. However, she wants to make the point that this goes much wider than Kennedy, that all the spying on her amounted to an ‘interference’, and that the actions of all the other undercovers need to be taken into account.

As with Articles 3 and 8 (freedom from torture etc, right to private and family life), the interferences arose out of the same police desire to monitor and control protest. It was the reason Kennedy and the other undercovers were deployed, and even the police’s own internal reports acknowledge that when it came to peaceful protest, they overstepped the line. The scope and depth of the reporting that the NPOIU set out to do was not justified under the legal regime, as shown in the analysis of the authorisations.


Since 2000, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) has governed how bodies use covert monitoring tactics, including undercovers and informers, and issues such as collateral intrusion, should be handled.

There is also an important bit of case law, Malone v UK (1985), which requires that the law must be sufficiently clear to give citizens adequate indication of the circumstances and conditions on which authorities are empowered to use to this secret and potentially dangerous interference with the right to respect for private life.

Kilroy took the Tribunal through a careful analysis of RIPA, showing that Malone v UK was not satisfied. She pointed out that the level of authorisation required for undercover police was actually quite low in comparison to, say, planting a listening device or bugging a phone. Likewise, the conditions are much more stringent.

Kate said:

Who’d have thought that UK law, where uniformed officers need a warrant from a judge to search your garden shed, that all it would need would be the OK from another police officer for them to send #spycops to live in your home and sleep in your bed for years?

Kilroy argued this means that while some intrusion could be foreseeable, on the face of RIPA the public could not reasonably deduce that undercover policing would be used in such an intrusive way.

The judges questioned her, saying that while the relationships are agreed to be unlawful due to their violation of fundamental human rights, RIPA was not at fault, it’s just that the police hadn’t adhered to it.

To this, Kilroy responded that a related case, that of AKJ v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, had since ruled that the definition of relationships in RIPA as pertaining to undercovers did in fact encompass sexual/ intimate relationships. The law itself was not as clear as it should have been, given the extent of intrusion it permitted.

Without a clear prohibition on sexual relationships, the appropriate legal safeguards supposedly in place to properly reflect the severity of the intrusion were not actually there. So part of the problem lies with RIPA itself, something even HM Inspectorate of Constabulary had flagged up in previous reports.


David Perry QC

David Perry QC

The Metropolitan Police and National Police Chiefs Council, the Defendants in the case, were represented by David Perry QC. He began by claiming that the police were approaching the case with the least adversarial approach possible and seeking to disclose everything that could be, thereby raising not a few eyebrows.

He acknowledged that the operations were ‘tainted by illegality’ and their authorisations could be stigmatised as unlawful on the basis of the concessions already made by the police. These concessions were on the basis of Articles 3 and 8 (freedom from torture etc, right to private life), not on the grounds of the interference with the right to protest, other than where Kennedy’s sexual relationship with Kate Wilson had an impact on these.

This breach was further exacerbated by the fact that Kennedy’s cover officer, EN31, ought to have known of the relationship, a failure of the police’s ‘positive obligation’ under Articles 3 and 8. However, Perry takes EN31’s denial of any knowledge of sexual relationship at face value.

Perry didn’t want to detract from the admitted breaches, but did want to address their severity by interpreting the material as disclosed. This is a problem with much of this case – the lack of any real witness from the police side to adequately testify on their behalf. As a result, there is an awful lot of freestyle interpretation going on, with Perry putting it out there what he reckons the officers involved might have been thinking.

From the start it is clear that they are hanging Kennedy out to dry. Considerable time was spent on going through the regime, codes and training that officers received. We were told that they were instructed on the ethical and moral standards expected from them at all times. They say that Kennedy completely violated these. According to Perry, this was the starting point by which his fellow officers would treat and judge him, and he betrayed all of them, including EN31.

The police say they couldn’t possibly have foreseen what Kennedy would do. After all, before joining the NPOIU, Kennedy had been an experienced police officer (of ten years) which included low level undercover work as a Test Purchasing Officer buying illegal drugs. He’d gone through the training which, according to them, included prohibition of sexual relationships. His fellow officers could surely expect him to comply with the standards set out for all police officers, as well as for undercovers.

Kate highlighted:

Lieven J: Is there any evidence, and I mean evidence in the broadest possible sense, of any officer every being subjected to disciplinary action for having engaged in a sexual relationship whilst undercover?

Perry: No, there is not.

Perry pointed out that in having sexual relationships, Kennedy destroyed his own credibility as an undercover. Kennedy would have known had he witnessed any serious criminality, he could have been required to give evidence in court – but any such evidence would be hopelessly compromised by his personal relationships.

It is unclear if the barrister is aware of the significance of his words – the police have for a long time argued that the undercovers were guaranteed secrecy for life, and indeed we have seen the extent to which they will protect their identities. However, Perry was effectively conceding that the policing regime itself meant this could not be the case, that undercovers could not have such an unqualified expectation.

He then went on to argue that Kennedy was passing himself off as an honourable officer to his colleagues in the NPOIU while lying to them. Events such as him reporting a sexual advance by an activist demonstrated that he could be relied on to report such things honestly.

However, other evidence from the logs show that he was lying to them about his actions and reasons for doing things. For instance, on one occasion that he spent alone with ‘Lisa‘ (another woman he deceived into a relationship), his log entry claims to have included other people with whom he discussed political activity. Elsewhere he exaggerated to suit his own ends, and probably to justify his continued deployment.

Kate observed:

It seems the police point is MK did report a sexual advance by someone else. So #spycops Cover Officer could assume anything untoward that happened with anyone else (such as me) he would know. (Note: my relationship had been going on for 10 months by then)

EN31, was Kennedy’s Principal Cover Officer, someone he was in daily contact with and who had responsibility for his welfare and other issues. We know from the evidence that he would be physically close to Kennedy, and knew where he was at all times. He was in that position for the entire seven years of the deployment and clearly had a close bond with Kennedy.

It is accepted by the police that EN31, as Kennedy’s cover officer, should have been more intrusive and asked more questions. According to Perry, though, EN31 simply accepted Kennedy’s word in good faith and had no reason to believe otherwise. After all, Kennedy never reported that he was having sexual relationships. There were failings here, but the blame remains entirely with the undercover who deceived everyone, not just the women he targeted for relationships. Furthermore, the relationships were not for tactical purposes, they were for his own personal reasons and needs.

Significant to Perry’s case is that the contact logs did not record relationships per se. This was because Kennedy knew he’d be removed from the field if he did admit them.

Kate said:

The police go on to read a #spycops intelligence report 18/11/2003 “Katja” (that’s me) spent the night of the 17th November 2003 at Mark Stone’s flat in Marshall Street. Somehow this is supposed to support their case, because it doesn’t say we had sex. (We did)

It is also the police position that Kennedy’s own evidence about this, such as that given before the Home Affairs Select Committee, shows him to be an unreliable witness, angry with his seniors and seeking to blame them (when he said they must have known about his relationships). Even the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), which reviewed all Kennedy’s material in 2011, did not see a trace in the material of sexual relationships.

Kate noted the exchange:

Perry: “MK did not report any romantic or sexual advance by the claimant towards him whilst he was deployed.”

Judge: Mr Perry, is that really how you want that point to be recorded?

Apparently, yes, it is!

Overall, Perry is protective of EN31, presenting him as a trusting fella misled by Kennedy. He speculates on behalf of the cover officer as to what he was thinking and how he interpreted the the material, taking his statement very much at face value and focusing on the contact logs as if they gave the full picture. He did not explore the relationship between Kennedy and EN31, which appears from the logs to have been very close and matey.

Likewise, Perry has a very particular interpretation of the material in the logs on the grounds of viewing them through EN31’s eyes – as if they are the arbitrators of the facts themselves. Without going into detail, the Tribunal was presented with a weird interpretation of life among the campaigners targeted by Kennedy through this incomplete reporting. For instance, he spent some time on the fact that as they travelled around to events, campaigners would spend time at each others addresses. So mentions of this in the logs should not be taken as untoward or indicative of sexual relationships. Likewise, by the nature of the groups targeted, Kennedy would have to associate with people of both genders.

It was frankly weak stuff. It is a misleading reading of detailed contact logs which clearly infer Kennedy was conducting a relationship with Kate Wilson. At best, it is saying that in seven years, EN31 was so profoundly  incompetent that he suspected nothing and did nothing. Likewise, the various senior officers in the NPOIU who also read the logs. It also calls into to question the thoroughness of the SOCA report if they missed the obvious.


Not long before the end of the day, there was an important exchange regarding an NPOIU intelligence report from the time Kate Wilson is recorded as having first stayed over at Kennedy’s house in Nottingham. Justice Lieven noted that it contained a reference to a family friend of Kate’s, describing him as a ‘South African terrorist working at the Home Office’ when he was in fact a Minister of State.

Perry was quick to distance the police from the outrageous comment, claiming it was an example of Kennedy’s inaccurate reporting, but Justice Lieven pointed out that Kennedy’s contact logs for that period are among the documents that have been ‘lost’, and that this report is authored by someone else in the NPOIU, not Kennedy, and that they clearly thought the information was of sufficient interest to send up the chain. Perry accepted that the information was derived from Kennedy, but that the report was written by someone else.

Lieven demanded that the police lawyers address the issue by producing something that would allow her to understand who authored, saw and commented on the reports. The police barrister said he would have to take instruction, and promised her something by Monday.


On Friday 23 April, the Tribunal sat in ‘closed session’. This is where evidence that was not shown to Kate was to be discussed. She was not allowed to be there, although the police will be. Instead her interests will be represented by the Counsel to The Tribunal, Sarah Hannett QC.

Monday 26 April will see the open hearings resume, with a continuation of the police case. This will be followed by a response from Kate’s lawyer, Charlotte Kilroy QC, to any new points. At which point the hearing finally ends. It is unknown when judgement will be handed down, but it may take several months.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

UPDATED 02APRIL: Michael K Jaco: COVID created at Fort Dietrich US – GLOBAL COUP CONTINUES March 25 2021 + update current news


Mar, 25, 2021 

– Update Current News

Michael Jaco Official

Michael Jaco Official






Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

#FreeAssange: JOHN PILGER: A Day in the Death of British Justice – 13 Aug. 2021

The reputation of British justice now rests on the shoulders of the High Court in the life or death case of Julian Assange.

The High Court at the Royal Courts of Justice. (David Castor/Wikimedia Commons)

By John Pilger
in London
Special to Consortium News

I sat in Court 4 in the Royal Courts of Justice in London Wednesday with Stella Moris, Julian Assange’s partner. I have known Stella for as long as I have known Julian. She, too, is a voice of freedom, coming from a family that fought the fascism of Apartheid. Today, her name was uttered in court by a barrister and a judge, forgettable people were it not for the power of their endowed privilege.

The barrister, Clair Dobbin, is in the pay of the regime in Washington, first Trump’s then Biden’s. She is America’s hired gun, or “silk”, as she would prefer. Her target is Julian Assange, who has committed no crime and has performed an historic public service by exposing the criminal actions and secrets on which governments, especially those claiming to be democracies, base their authority. 

For those who may have forgotten, WikiLeaks, of which Assange is founder and publisher, exposed the secrets and lies that led to the invasion of Iraq, Syria and Yemen, the murderous role of the Pentagon in dozens of countries, the blueprint for the 20-year catastrophe in Afghanistan, the attempts by Washington to overthrow elected governments, such as Venezuela’s, the collusion between nominal political opponents (Bush and Obama) to stifle a torture investigation and the CIA’s Vault 7 campaign that turned your mobile phone, even your TV set, into a spy in your midst.

WikiLeaks released almost a million documents from Russia which allowed Russian citizens to stand up for their rights. It revealed the Australian government had colluded with the U.S. against its own citizen, Assange. It named those Australian politicians who have “informed” for the U.S. It made the connection between the Clinton Foundation and the rise of jihadism in American-armed states in the Gulf.

About Those Who Take Us to War

There is more: WikiLeaks disclosed the U.S. campaign to suppress wages in sweatshop countries like Haiti, India’s campaign of torture in Kashmir, the British government’s secret agreement to shield “U.S. interests” in its official Iraq inquiry and the British Foreign Office’s plan to create a fake “marine protection zone” in the Indian Ocean to cheat the Chagos islanders out of their right of return.

In other words, WikiLeaks has given us real news about those who govern us and take us to war, not the preordained, repetitive spin that fills newspapers and television screens. This is real journalism; and for the crime of real journalism, Assange has spent most of the past decade in one form of incarceration or another, including Belmarsh prison, a horrific place.

Diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, he is a gentle, intellectual visionary driven by his belief that a democracy is not a democracy unless it is transparent, and accountable.

On Wednesday, the United States sought the approval of Britain’s High Court to extend the terms of its appeal against a decision by a district judge, Vanessa Baraitser, in January to bar Assange’s extradition. Baraitser accepted the deeply disturbing evidence of a number of experts that Assange would be at great risk if he were incarcerated in the U.S.’s infamous prison system.

Professor Michael Kopelman, a world authority on neuro-psychiatry, had said Assange would find a way to take his own life — the direct result of what Professor Nils Melzer, the United Nations rapporteur on torture, described as the craven “mobbing” of Assange by governments – and their media echoes.

Those of us who were in the Old Bailey last September to hear Kopelman’s evidence were shocked and moved. I sat with Julian’s father, John Shipton, whose head was in his hands. The court was also told about the discovery of a razor blade in Julian’s Belmarsh cell and that he had made desperate calls to the Samaritans and written notes and much else that filled us with more than sadness.

Watching the lead barrister acting for Washington, James Lewis — a man from a military background who deploys a cringingly theatrical “aha!” formula with defence witnesses — reduce these facts to “malingering” and smearing witnesses, especially Kopelman, we were heartened by Kopelman’s revealing response that Lewis’s abuse was “a bit rich” as Lewis himself had sought to hire Kopelman’s expertise in another case.

No Contradiction

Lewis’s sidekick is Clair Dobbin, and Wednesday was her day. Completing the smearing of Professor Kopelman was down to her. An American with some authority sat behind her in court.

Dobbin said Kopelman had “misled” Judge Baraister in September because he had not disclosed that Julian Assange and Stella Moris were partners, and their two young children, Gabriel and Max, were conceived during the period Assange had taken refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in London.

The implication was that this somehow lessened Kopelman’s medical diagnosis: that Julian, locked up in solitary in Belmarsh prison and facing extradition to the U.S. on bogus “espionage” charges, had suffered severe psychotic depression and had planned, if he had not already attempted, to take his own life.

For her part, Judge Baraitser saw no contradiction. The full nature of the relationship between Stella and Julian had been explained to her in March 2020, and Professor Kopelman had made full reference to it in his report in August 2020. So the judge and the court knew all about it before the main extradition hearing last September. In her judgement in January, Baraitser said this:

“[Professor Kopelman] assessed Mr. Assange during the period May to December 2019 and was best placed to consider at first-hand his symptoms. He has taken great care to provide an informed account of Mr. Assange background and psychiatric history. He has given close attention to the prison medical notes and provided a detailed summary annexed to his December report. He is an experienced clinician and he was well aware of the possibility of exaggeration and malingering. I had no reason to doubt his clinical opinion.”

She added that she had “not been misled” by the exclusion in Kopelman’s first report of the Stella-Julian relationship and that she understood that Kopelman was protecting the privacy of Stella and her two young children.

In fact, as I know well, the family’s safety was under constant threat to the point when an embassy security guard confessed he had been told to steal one of the baby’s nappies so that a CIA-contracted company could analyse its DNA. There has been a stream of unpublicised threats against Stella and her children.

Based on a Fraudster

For the U.S. and its legal hirelings in London, damaging the credibility of a renowned expert by suggesting he withheld this information was a way, they no doubt reckoned, to rescue their crumbling case against Assange. In June, the Icelandic newspaper Stundin reported that a key prosecution witness against Assange has admitted fabricating his evidence. The one “hacking” charge the Americans hoped to bring against Assange if they could get their hands on him depended on this source and witness, Sigurdur Thordarson, an FBI informant.

Thordarson had worked as a volunteer for WikiLeaks in Iceland between 2010 and 2011. In 2011, as several criminal charges were brought against him, he contacted the FBI and offered to become an informant in return for immunity from all prosecution. It emerged that he was a convicted fraudster who embezzled $55,000 from WikiLeaks, and served two years in prison. In 2015, he was sentenced to three years for sex offenses against teenage boys. The Washington Post described Thordarson’s credibility as the “core” of the case against Assange.

On Wednesday, Lord Chief Justice Holroyde made no mention of this witness. His concern was that it was “arguable” that Judge Baraitser had attached too much weight to the evidence of Professor Kopelman, a man revered in his field. He said it was “very unusual” for an appeal court to have to reconsider evidence from an expert accepted by a lower court, but he agreed with Ms. Dobbin it was “misleading” even though he accepted Kopelman’s “understandable human response” to protect the privacy of Stella and the children.

If you can unravel the arcane logic of this, you have a better grasp than I who have sat through this case from the beginning. It is clear Kopelman misled nobody. Judge Baraitser – whose hostility to Assange personally was a presence in her court – said that she was not misled; it was not an issue; it did not matter. So why had Lord Chief Justice Holroyde spun the language with its weasel legalise and sent Julian back to his cell and its nightmares? There, he now waits for the High Court’s final decision in October – for Julian Assange, a life or death decision.

In the Land of Magna Carta

And why did Holroyde send Stella from the court trembling with anguish? Why is this case “unusual”? Why did he throw the gang of prosecutor-thugs at the Department of Justice in Washington — who got their big chance under Trump, having been rejected by Obama – a life raft as their rotting, corrupt case against a principled journalist sunk as surely as Titantic?

This does not necessarily mean that in October the full bench of the High Court will order Julian to be extradited. In the upper reaches of the masonry that is the British judiciary there are, I understand, still those who believe in real law and real justice from which the term “British justice” takes its sanctified reputation in the land of the Magna Carta. It now rests on their ermined shoulders whether that history lives on or dies.

I sat with Stella in the court’s colonnade while she drafted words to say to the crowd of media and well-wishers outside in the sunshine. Clip-clopping along came Clair Dobbin, spruced, ponytail swinging, bearing her carton of files: a figure of certainty: she who said Julian Assange was “not so ill” that he would consider suicide. How does she know?

Has Ms. Dobbin worked her way through the medieval maze at Belmarsh to sit with Julian in his yellow arm band, as Professors Koppelman and Melzer have done, and Stella has done, and I have done? Never mind. The Americans have now “promised” not to put him in a hellhole, just as they “promised” not to torture Chelsea Manning, just as they promised ……

And has she read the WikiLeaks’ leak of a Pentagon document dated 15 March, 2009? This foretold the current war on journalism. U.S. intelligence, it said, intended to destroy WikiLeaks’ and Julian Assange’s “centre of gravity” with threats and “criminal prosecution”. Read all 32 pages and you are left in no doubt that silencing and criminalising independent journalism was the aim, smear the method.

I tried to catch Ms. Dobbin’s gaze, but she was on her way: job done.

Outside, Stella struggled to contain her emotion. This is one brave woman, as indeed her man is an exemplar of courage. “What has not been discussed today,” said Stella, “is why I feared for my safety and the safety of our children and for Julian’s life. The constant threats and intimidation we endured for years, which has been terrorising us and has been terrorising Julian for 10 years. We have a right to live, we have a right to exist and we have a right for this nightmare to come to an end once and for all.”


John Pilger is an Australian-British journalist and filmmaker based in London.Pilger’s Web site is: In 2017, the British Library announced a John Pilger Archive of all his written and filmed work. The British Film Institute includes his 1979 film, “Year Zero: the Silent Death of Cambodia,” among the 10 most important documentaries of the 20thcentury. Some of his previous contributions to Consortium News can be found here.  

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Hacker interview: Gummo: what the police and others can do on your pc…and a whole lot more 07 Aug. 2021

Hacker interview: Gummo

– [go to 32mins in to see just how vulnerable most pcs are]

10 Dec. 2020 

Soft White Underbelly interview and portrait of Gummo, a computer hacker from Jacksonville, Florida.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

OUTRAGE: #FreeAssange supporter Craig Murray jailed, and joins Julian Assange behind bars – 04 August 2021

Craig Murray joins Julian Assange behind bars

  • Former British diplomat and whistleblower Craig Murray has begun serving an eight-month prison sentence in Scotland over his supposed “jigsaw identification” of witnesses in a failed sexual assault case against former Scottish National Party (SNP) leader Alex Salmond.

Murray’s jailing for contempt of court is a settling of scores over his long record of exposing the crimes of British and US imperialism.

He surrendered himself to St Leonard’s police station in Edinburgh Sunday afternoon. Surrounded by supporters, the 62-year-old, whose pleas for mitigation on health grounds were rejected by courts in Scotland and England, embraced his wife Nadira and their two young children.

Since 2002, Murray has earned the enmity of the British state, its intelligence services, judiciary and media over his exposure of human rights abuses by the imperialist powers extending from Central Asia to London’s Belmarsh Prison.

As British Ambassador to Uzbekistan in 2002, Murray exposed British and US complicity in torture as part of the “war on terror.” One year after the US invasion of Afghanistan, he blew the whistle on the widespread use of torture by the US-backed regime of Islam Karimov, including “rape with objects such as broken bottles; asphyxiation; pulling out of fingernails; smashing of limbs with blunt objects; and use of boiling liquids including complete immersion of the body.”

Murray’s exposé cut across long-term strategic plans set in motion after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Within weeks of 9/11, Karimov allowed the US to establish a military base in southern Uzbekistan, with the US funnelling $79 million to Uzbekistan’s security forces. Torture was used to extract false confessions, with information fed to British and US intelligence, and used to justify the invasion and military occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.

In 2018, Murray used his knowledge of the intelligence services to expose British imperialism’s efforts to utilise the poisoning of former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia to ramp up hostilities against Russia, skewering their lurid claims that Moscow had manufactured and deployed “Novichoks” on British soil.

Left, Craig Murray and his family outside St Leonard’s police station Edinburgh on the day of his incarceration for contempt of court. (Wikimedia Commons). Right, Julian Assange

But it was in 2019 that Murray came to worldwide prominence for his eloquent defence of persecuted WikiLeaks founder and journalist Julian Assange. After Assange was seized from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London by a police snatch-squad in April and indicted under the Espionage Act for his exposure of US war crimes, Murray’s defence of his friend was unrelenting. His daily reports during extradition hearings in February and September 2020 won an audience of millions, cutting through the lies, filth and hypocrisy of British judicial proceedings overseen by the CIA.

In 2020, Murray’s exposure of #MeToo-style court proceedings against Salmond provided the ruling class with its opportunity to silence him. The former SNP leader was charged with rape and sexual assault in 2019 based on allegations passed to police by the Scottish government. Murray later reported “with a high degree of certainty” that First Minister Nicola Sturgeon’s Chief of Staff, Liz Lloyd, was behind reports in the Scottish press in 2018 alleging sexual assault by Salmond.

Despite a massive police operation to encourage women to testify against Salmond, including some 400 police interviews, the jury exonerated him. Witnesses made claims that were impossible to verify, were frequently implausible and were sometimes disproven in court. But while Salmond was proven innocent, Murray was charged with contempt over his supposed “jigsaw identification” of witnesses—a claim that he has comprehensively refuted.

Murray’s jailing is a further milestone in the collapse of democracy. Lady Leeona Dorrian, who presided over the Salmond trial and later sentenced Murray, is leading efforts to abolish jury trials in sexual assault cases. As Murray wrote Sunday, “We will then have a situation where, as established by my imprisonment, no information at all on the defence case may be published in case it contributes to ‘jigsaw identification’, and where conviction will rest purely on the view of the judge…

“The right to have the facts judged in serious crime allegations by a jury of our peers is a glory of our civilisation. It is the product of millennia, not lightly to be thrown away and replaced by a huge increase in arbitrary state power. That movement is of course fuelled by current fashionable political dogma which is that the victim must always be believed. That claim has morphed from an initial meaning that police and first responders must take accusations seriously, to a dogma that accusation is proof and it is wrong to even question the evidence, which is of course to deny the very possibility of false accusation.”

Like Assange, who was targeted via state manufactured sexual assault allegations in Sweden, Murray is a victim of the state’s utilisation of gender politics to suppress fundamental democratic rights, aimed above all at silencing those who expose the crimes of imperialism.

The sentencing of Murray has set a dangerous precedent above all in its singling out of independent media. The judges’ June 8 High Court ruling insisted, “it is relevant to distinguish his [Murray’s] position from that of the mainstream press, which is regulated, and subject to codes of practice and ethics in a way in which those writing as the applicant does are not.”

This is sickening hypocrisy. What “codes of practice” and “ethics” were the mainstream press exhibiting when they recycled state propaganda about Iraq’s “Weapons of Mass Destruction”—lies used to illegally invade, occupy and destroy an oppressed country leading to 1 million dead?

Murray’s imprisonment extends the precedent set by Assange’s indictment under the Espionage Act. Amid a pandemic that has triggered an historic breakdown of the world capitalist order, the ruling class fears the eruption of mass working class opposition to malignant social inequality, austerity, police violence and authoritarianism, and the escalating drive to war.

In 2010, WikiLeaks’ exposures of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, torture, rendition and state corruption sparked mass movements of the working class and oppressed in Tunisia that led to the Arab Spring. The ruling class responded by designating Assange a “high-tech terrorist,” in the words of Joe Biden, with former CIA Director Leon Panetta telling German public broadcaster ARD that Assange was being targeted to “send a message to others not to do the same thing.”

Last Thursday, Murray issued a press statement that was ignored by the mainstream media, “I believe this is actually the state’s long sought revenge for my whistleblowing on security service collusion with torture and my long-term collaboration with Wikileaks and other whistleblowers. Unfortunately important free speech issues are collateral damage.”

In January 2018, the International Editorial Board of the World Socialist Web Site issued a call for an international movement to fight internet censorship. Describing efforts by Google, Facebook and Twitter to suppress access to socialist and anti-war news sites throughout the world, the WSWS warned, “the technological scaffolding of a 21st century capitalist police state is being erected.”

The WSWS has itself been a central target of corporate censorship, through Google’s deliberate suppression of search results via algorithms and an army of censors. Of the 150 top Google search terms generating traffic to the WSWS prior to April 2017, by the summer of that year 145 no longer produced even a single search result for our website. These restrictions, coordinated by state intelligence agencies in the US and Europe, have tightened further, with the ICFI’s German section, the Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei (SGP), designated an extremist organisation by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) in 2018.

The WSWS has insisted that the defence of democratic rights must be waged by the working class against the capitalist state and independently of all of its political defenders. We urge workers and youth throughout the world to raise the demand for the immediate release of Murray and Assange as the spearhead of the struggle against imperialist war and authoritarianism.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

#FreeAssange: NEW BOOK: First Look: Assange’s New Book of Musings

Julian Assange:  “33: Isolation

“I have been isolated from all ability to prepare to defend myself: no laptop, no internet, ever, no computer, no library, so far, and even if I get access it will be just for half an hour, with everyone else, once a week. Just two visits a month and it takes weeks to get someone on the call list and a Catch-22 in getting their details to be security screened. Then all calls except [those with] lawyers are recorded, and calls are max ten minutes and in a limited thirty-minute window each day in which all prisoners compete for the phone. And credit? Just a few pounds a week and no one can call in. The other side? A superpower that has been preparing for nine years with hundreds of people and untold millions spent on the case. I am defenseless and am counting on you and others of good character to save my life.”

Assange, letter from Belmarsh Prison, published in the Canary, May 13, 2019. This letter was written one month after Julian was imprisoned in Belmarsh.”

 First Look: Assange’s New Book of Musings

By John Hawkins    In Series: Book Reviews

assange book 2aug21


Julian Assange in his Own Words cover
(Image by OR Books)   Details   DMCA

First Look: Assange’s New Book of Musings

by John Kendall Hawkins

“Nothing is lost if one has the courage to proclaim that all is lost and we must begin anew.”

Julio Corta’zar, Hopscotch (1963)

There’s a new collection of Julian Assange’s sayings and recountings and anecdotes coming out in mid-October, titled, Julian Assange In His Own Words. I was lucky enough to be provided an early galley copy from the publisher, OR Books, a small independent alternative to Amazon. They’ve published other books on Assange and Wikileaks worth reading, including In Defense of Julian Assange (my review); When Google Met WikiLeaks (my review); Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet; and, Women, Whistleblowing, WikiLeaks.

You might wonder: Why read about a book not publicly available for a couple more months? Well, to keep alive his words and perceptions of power, to fight The Man by continuing to resist their full court press of his mind and the isolation of his voice (we never hear from him) at a time when we could use a guy savvy to Deep State machinations and MSM misdirection. As we build up the marching bands and parades (did you see where she caught that baton!?) in tribute to the coming spectacle of horror known as the 20th Anniversary of 9/11™, you might want to re-read some Assange material and re-consider the value of his journalism in Keeping the Bastards Honest with the sunshine of his wicked revelations.

Remember. They did Julian. With all that dark irony they so love. Sweden’s strong whistleblowing laws would be used to trap. A publicized intentionally leaky condom showed how reckless Assange was with data he posted (an attempt at hoisting him on his own petard). Yanks would be waiting to escort him back to the US to face a show trial. So, he broke bail and went on the llama across town to Ecuador (more or less) and was given political sanctuary. Then they took him out, confirmed that a secret US indictment wanted him in the US. And now he waits for a British court to free him or hand him over. A process which could take another year to complete. In the meantime, he’s silent, and journos have stopped looking at his leaks, and some have taken on a sinister patina reflected in the surface of their fallow minds.

Without turning him into Jesus, we can still be inspired by his self-described mission to seek radical transparency of government (as if it were a Linux system), while, at the same time, he remains one of the world’s bolshiest champions of privacy. As the publisher puts it in an online description of the book, “Assange may be gagged, but in these pages his words run free, providing both an exhortation to fight for a better world and an inspiration when doing so.” Exactly.

The book, in its current galley form, still needs some tightening up. It seems to want to be a kind of book of aphorisms or political etudes, after the tradition of Montaigne or Nietzsche, but it’s not quite there yet. In the introduction the reader is invited to go at the text as if s/he were reading Julio Corta’zar. We’re told:

This book has no beginning and no end. Like Julio Corta’zar’s Hopscotch, you can read it from the beginning to the end or start anywhere, jump around. You can choose pages randomly. You can follow a particular subject, censorship, for example, or follow a particular year, to have an idea what Julian might have been thinking then. You can go through the book just reading the headings to each quotation-they give an encapsulation.

I don’t entirely get the gist of the Corta’zar reference. Mendax ain’t no Corta’zar. But here are some of the subject headings that light the way: Activism. Censorship, Empire, Internet, Journalism, Justice, Power, Prison, Society, Surveillance, War, and Wikileaks. And all the quotes are from previous published utterances of Assange. So no deep thoughts from the belly of the Belmarsh beast or the firing of his gulag kathinknakov.

But it did get me watching some Corta’zar-based films. I started watching the Michelangelo Antonioni Criterion Classic Blow-up last night (photographer, crime, stalking), but seemed to remember having seen it before and left off after several minutes, thinking I’ll return later. Tonight, I’ll try Godard’s Weekend, a comedy-drama adventure, based on Corta’zar’s short story “La autopista del Sur.”

But mostly, engaging the Corta’zar experiment more to the spirit of the man’s genius, I decided to methodically number all of the highlighted sections (44 of them) of my reading and randomly choose 10 bits to respond to. To leave any hidden agenda I might have had out of the tough yakka of analysis ahead, to preclude any privileging of information, and to ‘guarantee the randomness’ (Hesse, 1943) of my choices, I put the numbers, with corresponding topic titles, on a wheel of fortune, and spun 10 times until my yarrow sticks (as it were) were lined up (or not), and I soon found my way as an essayist. Should the reader find a pattern of meaning in the following reading, it must be construed as akin to an I Ching fortune.

So, then, spin by spin, here we are:

25: Neoliberal Pyramid

“The internet is underpinned by extremely complex trade interactions between optical fiber manufacturers, semiconductor manufacturers, mining companies that dig all this stuff up, and all the financial lubricants to make the trade happen, courts to enforce private property laws and so on. So it really is the top of the pyramid of the whole neoliberal system.”


Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet was co-written with Jacob Appelbaum, Andy Muller-Maguhn, and Je’re’mie Zimmermann. It’s a book about the need for hacktivists to stay hidden, to preserve their anonymity and personal identity and privacy, and they encourage readers to do the same. When you think about what Assange is saying here, he is describing a world truly composed of equal parts horror and science fiction that is controlled by lefty neoliberal rhetoric and enforcer neoconservative forces. He and the hacktivists were way ahead of the curve on this one.

At heart, the Internet is literally a system of manipulated electricity, ones and zeroes, ons and offs, that like Morse code make up packages of information that are sent and received. In the beginning, such exchanges were between academics and scientists, and seemed benign (I wuv you, TimBL), but Capitalists saw a way of monetizing the system by storing and manipulating the ones-and-zeroes of people’s desires and algorithmic behavior, and then the exchange of people’s ideas in free-flow harmony became threatening to the loose notion of State and “needed to be” controlled by warrior types who began collecting everybody’s information and storing it in permanent records (Snowden, 2013).

True Democracy means we are all “enemy combatants,” in principle, since freedom of thought and expression work against the prevailing structures of power. The Internet started out as a military product of the Cold War (ARPANET) and you could argue that it has been not only monetized but militarized — literally made into a futuristic battlefield where our hearts and minds are being constantly manipulated and won over. This state of affairs was most recently brought to our attention by some of the designers and managers of Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Amazon in the film, The Social Dilemma (2020). Do No Evil types explained how humans were being herded into a hivemindedness that essentially took away their individuality and mental freedom without their knowledge or consent.

So, where will future wars be? Places where raw materials for the infrastructure of the Internet are in plentiful supply. Rare minerals, oil, water. And Assange and company argue that by declaring the Internet a battlefield, it needs to be controlled like any other battlefield by the military (in cooperation with the merchants of our desires). Essentially, the Pentagon has repossessed the Internet. As unindicted “enemy combatants” we have a right and a duty to fight back before it’s too late by encrypting our presence and, in the hacktivists case, doing deeds online that reveal the true intentions of the State. Think Mr. Robot.

33: Isolation

“I have been isolated from all ability to prepare to defend myself: no laptop, no internet, ever, no computer, no library, so far, and even if I get access it will be just for half an hour, with everyone else, once a week. Just two visits a month and it takes weeks to get someone on the call list and a Catch-22 in getting their details to be security screened. Then all calls except [those with] lawyers are recorded, and calls are max ten minutes and in a limited thirty-minute window each day in which all prisoners compete for the phone. And credit? Just a few pounds a week and no one can call in. The other side? A superpower that has been preparing for nine years with hundreds of people and untold millions spent on the case. I am defenseless and am counting on you and others of good character to save my life.”

Assange, letter from Belmarsh Prison, published in the Canary, May 13, 2019. This letter was written one month after Julian was imprisoned in Belmarsh.

This is what the State does to those who allegedly cross the line. Privacy advocates get isolation cells. They’d prefer to drone you. But that’s currently against the law, although by calling Assange an “enemy combatant” the Pentagon could try to justify his “assassination” by ginseng blades, ala Iranian general Soleimani.

Nuff said.

22: Google

“If the future of the internet is to be Google, that should be of serious concern to people all over the world . . . for whom the internet embodies the promise of an alternative to the U.S. cultural, economic, and strategic hegemony. A ‘don’t be evil’ empire is still an empire.”

from The WikiLeaks Files: The World According to US Empire (2015)

Most lefties now know that this sentiment has the ring of truth to it. In When Google Met Wikileaks the battle between the radical transparency of government went up against the Corporate State. Assange describes a visit made to him during his house arrest in London by Jared Cohen, then a member of Obama’s state department and later Google executive. They each questioned the others’ right to control the flow of information to the public. A year after the visit, Cohen and Google CEO Eric Schmidt put out a kind of manifesto tome, The New Digital Age. Assange reviewed it for the NYT and said in part:

[It] proselytizes the role of technology in reshaping the world’s people and nations into likenesses of the world’s dominant superpower, whether they want to be reshaped or not. The prose is terse, the argument confident and the wisdom – banal … This book is a balefully seminal work in which neither author has the language to see, much less to express, the titanic centralizing evil they are constructing.

Yeah, and then it was revealed the pair had withdrawn their original title for the book, The Empire of the Mind.

Google’s days as gypsy grifter seemed to have been revealed by its secret attempt to build a censored search engine and system for the Chinese that would remove references to activist sites and words (no Tiananmen Square found), while also providing the IP address and other details of the searcher to the State. The project was called Dragonfly. Remember the myth when we were kids about the danger of dragonflies — they were scary because they could sew up your mouth. And that, in turn, made me think of that terrifying sci-fi story title, “I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream” by Harlan Ellison, which seems to be where we’re heading.

26: Mass consensus

“Despite this mass surveillance, mass communication has led to millions of people being able to come to a fast consensus. If you can go from a normal position to a new mass consensus position very quickly, then while the state might be able to see it developing, there’s not enough time to formulate an effective response.”


This is true and not true. As we saw with the Joseph Kony con game, and in the details of mass manipulation by “Russian” bots in the 2016 US presidential election, and in the general viral contagion of memes passed along by social media and the MSM, people can be mentally “mobilized” in a hurry. It comes down to their level of consciousness regarding the process. I’m not sure the “consensus” manufacturing described here is a good thing at all, whether by the State, Corporates, or Activists, there’s a creepy reactionary aspect that suppresses critical thinking and suspends ones autonomy. Icky. Although I wouldn’t mind having a go with it by getting a warmy swarmy consensus to shut down the Bigs — Oil, Agro, Food, Pharma”.

Also, Assange may have been unaware of the scope and depth of the surveillance state in 2012, when Cypherpunks came out. A year later, Snowden would blow the top off what the Surveillance State was really up to and how far they had gone. There are companies out there that do just what Assange says consensus can beat, such as the CIA-seedfunded Recorded Future, which monitors all communications online and draws up forecasts for “players.” Recorded Future is of special interest, as their CEO, Christopher Ahlberg, came out publicly against Snowden, saying his revelations has caused “terrorists” to change their tactics and therefore potentially putting lives at risk — a charge similar to the one raised against Assange in 2010.

42: Burning Sources

“Most of the media organizations do burn sources. Edward Snowden was abandoned in Hong Kong, especially by the Guardian, which had run his stories exclusively. But we thought that it was very important that a star source like Edward Snowden was not put in prison. Because that would have created a tremendous chilling effect on other sources coming forward.”

“We Are Drowning in Material,” interview, Spiegel International, July 20, 2015

It’s what they do, burn them to sell papers, then decide on hagiography (Ellsberg, Mark Felt) or pariahship (Assange, Snowden) or, in Trump’s everlovin’ saleability, a permanent two-minute hate. Burn, baby, burn. Ka-ching! Ellsberg was a Master of War who Broke Good and who now writes wonderful books about Doom ahead. Mark Felt was Deep Throat, an underling exec of J. Edgar Hoover, who spilled the beans when he wasn’t installed in Hoover’s place by Nixon. Deep Throat – Hoover: Get it? But Ass and Snow and Chelsea and Reality have to go gaily skipping to the gas chamber for exposing the Nazi-esque traits of American power elites. I’m as angry as a stereotyped Angus beef burger at Mickey D’s/ Beam me up, Scotty, I’m already outta here in my mind, as the Bard from Dulth would say, and that’s good enough for now.

41: Founding Values

“Our founding values are those of the U.S. Revolution. They are those of people like Jefferson and Madison.”

60 Minutes Rewind, interview, January 30, 2011

Go light on the secret sauce there, Julian. Why do you say, “Our?” In Australia, where you come from, and where I am currently stuck, like that Dylan song, you could get yourself killed talking Jefferson and Madison. There is no Bill of Rights in the “conservative” country you come from, and nobody wants them (“Nuh”) here; mateship will have to do, or else. The Gough saga here years back shows that the Queen of England can still dissolve government here with a phone call to a governor general, and there was no subsequent revolution, no tea was tossed in Sydney Harbour, and the flag that nationalists wrap themselves in here still, ironically, is stamped with the Union Jack. Lest they forget.

There are lots of speculative reasons for giving Gough the ol’heave-ho, but it should be duly noted that he started up the kind of democratic socialism American conservatives hate and will not truck, that he was against the war in Nam, Nixon was in office, and Gough had even allegedly threatened to close down the spy station in the Northern Territory known as Pine Gap, which has proven so useful for the geospatial coordinates required for the drone murders in, say, Yemen. It could have been worse for Gough; he mighta disappeared like another PM, Harold Holt, who went swimming one morning and never came back, and had his reputation further sullied when the Prevailing Culture had the moxie to name a swimming center after him. Droll or what? I’m thinking maybe, in Australia, ‘he went swimming’ is a euphemism for, you know, going to Dallas. Gough was no swimmer; he ‘abdicated’ without much of a fight.

Beware, Julian, you’re not American, and your releases can be seen as hypocritical and an information war you’re willing to wage against the Yanks but not against your own government’s secrecy. All the stuff you do is outlawed here. You’d be in prison here if you leaked Australian secrets — witness what They did at the ABC a few years back. In fact, they’d probably put you in prison for releasing American secrets, if you ever came home to Oz. Although, the Boochani-ites could probably set you up with some funds and positive spin, if you were willing to write a tell-all prison book, preferably by dribs and drabs on WhatsApp. (Talkin about our generation.) Your subsequent prison time here could be a sequel. A prison escape arranged, you on the lam, like Gregory in Shantaram, ensconced in India, a busker of blues outside the Taj Mahal.

But, then, maybe you were just being cheeky, hypothetically granting yourself American citizenship (I’d give it to you, mate) to tweak the nose of the Hypocrites in control in America, who spout liberty while they just plain wear… her… out.

29: Injustice

“When you are exposed to an unjust situation, rather than the pressure causing you to fold, the injustice in the pressure generates an anger that is sustaining.”

“Pardonnez-moi: L’interview de Julian Assange,” interview by Darius Rochebin, Radio Television Suisse, March 16, 2015

You and me both, Julian. I’m so f*cking angry I could explode. Scanner hot from the excess absurdity of Mankind. Evolution my ass; there’d better be a new paradigm ahead or I’m fuckin outta here.

19: Orwell

“It is the modern implementation of Orwell’s dictum: ‘Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past’-because all records of the past are stored physically in the present.”

When Google Met WikiLeaks

See Recorded Future above. But also Facebook’s Timeline. It could, for the coming generation who grew up with it from childhood — the post-9/11 generation, which, as Snowden points out in his memoir, is the first to grow up entirely under the Surveillance State — it could become a global anti-dissent operation where someone is pulled into a kangaroo court — maybe even in their own mind — and made to answer to ghoulish goon gods for alleged doings on a timeline many years ago, now outlawed, retroactively. Mind mafiosi. Orwell’s slogan is one more reason to listen to the Buddha: Be Here. Be Now. You are the presence you’ve been waiting for, unwrap the morning goodness.

17: Solzhenitsyn

“I think the attacks on us by Visa, PayPal, Mastercard, Bank of America, PostFinance, Moneybookers, and other U.S. companies-predominantly banks and financial intermediaries-is the most interesting revelation that has come out of what we’ve been doing. Like the Pentagon Papers case, the reaction and overreaction of the state and other groups involved in it will be seen to be one of the most important outcomes of the

revelation itself. What we see is that the United States, in its reaction to us, behaved no differently than the Soviet Union in the 1960s towards Solzhenitsyn, and in the 1970s towards Sakharov, just in a more modern way.”

Obrist, “In Conversation with Julian Assange, Part II,” Journal #26, e-flux, June 2011.

The attacks came out of the Cablegate release of documents that showed how naughty diplomacy could be. Snowden was more forthcoming in his memoir of 2013, Permanent Record, writing that the worst kept secret was that US embassies overseas were little more than spy stations.

But the key thing here is that Assange is no Solzhenitsyn. The stuff that S. describes is so harrowing and depressing, and the gulag so existentially experimental, you wonder how he could have come out of it writing books, and you’d have to read the dissident boat Kurd reject Boochani’s ordeal at the Manus Island detention center, ankle-deep in sh*t all day that it took three smuggled mobiles to document for activists in Melbourne. Yes, it implies Boochani had internet access. (Soon to be a major motion picture.) Probably Harvard acolytes helped Solzhenitsyn. They always do. They’re like that. Helpful to a Cause.

And the other thing is, the list of banks and financial operators Assange lists above includes EBay, owned by Pierre Omidyar, who, after dissing Assange, went on to buy up PayPal and to finance The Intercept, with Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitrast as founders of the alternate media mouth, who brought in some great talent and had themselves an all-star Travelling Wilburys thing going for awhile, before Glenn left in a huff over “censorship,”and Laura stormed off when she learned she was being grossly underpaid (by six figures) compared to GG and Jeremy Scahill. Omidyar kicked the tires of WaPo before saying, Nah, and letting his main marketplace competitor, Amazon’s Bezos, have the slogan, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” Some of us were hoping he’d die in the darkness of space, good people everywhere wondering, Why, Lord, why? Why do you take Sally Ride but not Jeff Bezos? Maybe Omidyar panicked, sensing that his Iranian background could pull up the bunny ears of DC pol bigots and warmongers and fellow billionaires would laugh at his fiscal Loss at parties for the Filthy Rich and Mad, Mad, Mad.

4: Truth

“Our civilization is only as strong as its ideas are true.”

Statement by Julian Assange after Six Months in Ecuadorian Embassy, December 20, 2012

Truth, huh? Well, we’re in the so-called post-Truth days, a slogan which in itself has no cachet or meaning — or, maybe I’m trying to be cute by waxing counter-epigrammatically. Excuse me while I give myself a backhander I’ll never forget. In any case, as much as I admire a lot of Assange’s ‘revelations’ of power at work (they’re certainly more coherent than fuckin Foucault at times, although having said that”.), They are already ‘recovering’ from his assaults on their deep state secret men’s business. Shhh.

I sent a letter to Julian a while back. Don’t know if he ever got, or, if so, read it, and, if read then, cared. But I did enclose my translation of the Heinrich Heine poem “Wahrhaftig” (1827). Heine was a Jew poet whom the good Germans loved and often quoted until the Reichstag fire ended the romance suddenly one night. The following poem is all I have to say about Truth and I’m done with the dumpling:

When the springtime shows up with its sunshine,

then the little flowers blossom and bloom;

when the moon begins her luminous course,

then the little stars swim in behind;

when the poet sees two sweet little eyes,

then songs gush forth from the depths of his soul; —

and yet songs and stars and little flowers

and little eyes and moonlight and sunshine,

no matter how pleasing all this stuff is,

it’s far from being the whole world.

FIN, back to French Borstal for me, a little soccer toy passed from ankle to ankle.

Also, another good reason to pre-order the book is that if you act now you can get a 15% discount. Know what I mean?

Footnote: Herman Hesse, The Glass Bead Game or Magister Ludi, Bantam, New York, 1943.

The Fifth Estate (2013) , a biopic of Julian Assange, starring Benedict Cumberbatch. Worth a watch.


Rate It | View Ratings

John Hawkins Social Media Pages:                      

John Kendall Hawkins is an American ex-pat freelance journalist and poet currently residing in Australia. His poetry, commentary, and reviews have appeared in publications in Oceania, Europe and the USA, such as Cordite, Morning Star, Hanging (more…)

Related Topic(s): Arrest Of AssangeAssange VigilCritical ThinkingDownsides Of Internet Of ThingsEthicsFirstlook MediaFree Julian AssangeFreethinkerGroup ThinkInternet Of Things; (more…)


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

OUTRAGEOUS! #FreeAssange supporter + Whistleblower Craig Murray Will Surrender Himself For Prison after Supreme Court refuses to hear his case – the Dissenter 29 July 2021

July 29, 2021

Whistleblower Craig Murray Will Surrender Himself For Prison

“I go to jail with a clean conscience after a Kafkaesque trial,” Murray stated.

Craig Murray (Photo: Mohamed Elmaazi)

In the case against former United Kingdom diplomat-turned whistleblower Craig Murray, the UK supreme court refused to hear Murray’s appeal. He will now surrender himself to police for an eight-month prison sentence.

The High Court in Edinburgh in Scotland convicted Murray of contempt on March 25 after concluding that he published several blog posts, which they believe led people to identify witnesses in the sexual assault trial against former Scottish Minister Alex Salmond.

Murray is the first person in the U.K. to be incarcerated for media contempt in over a half century. It has been 70 years since someone was incarcerated in Scotland on this charge.

“I go to jail with a clean conscience after a Kafkaesque trial,” Murray declared in a press statement. “I genuinely do not know who I am supposed to have identified or which phrases I published are said to have identified them, in combination with [details] in the public domain.”

“This judgment will have a chilling effect on reporting of the defense case at trials to the detriment of justice, and the different treatment of bloggers and approved media is sinister,” Murray added.

Murray maintained he carefully protected the “identities of the accusers” in his reports.

Previously, Mohamed Elmaazi covered this political prosecution for The Dissenter. He described how the judges found Murray guilty of “jigsaw identification,” which refers to the “possibility that a person may piece together information from various sources to arrive at the identification of a protected witness.”

“In doing so, the judge ruled that Murray violated a court order prohibiting the publication of information that could likely lead to the identification of the alleged victims in Salmond’s case,” Elmaazi wrote.

Murray is a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, a whistleblower, a broadcaster, a human rights advocate, and a journalist known for his writings on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s case. He supported Salmond, who was acquitted on all 14 counts of sexual harassment and assault, and he has backed the campaign for Scottish independence.

The High Court of Scotland, as Elmaazi detailed, “reviewed the investigation and handling of Salmond’s case, determined that the process was ‘unlawful,’ ‘procedurally unfair,’ and ‘tainted by apparent bias,’ a year before the trial commenced.”

Additionally, Murray contended, “I believe this is actually the state’s long sought revenge for my whistleblowing on security service collusion with torture and my long term collaboration with WikiLeaks and other whistleblowers. Unfortunately, important free speech issues are collateral damage.”

He planned to travel to Spain to provide witness testimony in the criminal case against UC Global director David Morales, the private security company implicated in spying against Assange, his legal team, and journalists and visitors who met with him while he was in the Ecuador embassy.

According to the Craig Murray Justice Campaign, there are several hours of surveillance video of Murray talking privately with Assange about his future and the future of WikiLeaks. But the Scottish court “removed Murray’s passport,” blocking his participation in the espionage case.

Murray plans to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights and exhaust all possible avenues to clear his name.

Particularly, Murray, his supporters, and some press freedom advocates are bothered by the way Lady Leeona Dorrian expressed her view that bloggers should be treated differently than establishment journalists because they are more likely to show restraint.

Murray’s wife and mother of his two children urged solidarity from anyone concerned about how this case threatens freedom of expression as well as “equality before the law.”


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

#FreeAssange: Saturday 31/07/21 12-14:00 HMP Belmarsh Solidarity Vigil + RCJ Strand London Wednesday 11/08/21 9am Free Assange Protest

Dear Friends in the struggle to Free Assange!

Keep up to date with our actions and news at

Saturday 31/07/21 12-14:00
HMP Belmarsh Solidarity Vigil

Day:            Saturday 31/07/21
Time:          12:00-14:00

How to get there: Get to Plumstead Rail Station or Woolwich Arsenal Rail Station and catch the 244/380 bus to HMP Belmarsh

How to get to Plumstead

How to get to  Woolwich Arsenal

Bus 380 route:
Bus 244 route:

Location:     HMP Belmarsh, Western Way, Thamesmead, London, SE28 0EB

Wednesday 11/08/21 9am
Free Assange Protest

Day:            Wednesday 11/08/21
Time:          19 am

The Don’t Extradite Campaign has called a protest outside the Royal Courts of Justice, during a preliminary hearing of the US Appeal against Julian Assange.

During this preliminary hearing The US Department of Justice represented by UK’s Crown Prosecution Service is going to challenge the earlier decision made by a British judge to grant the US DOJ only limited scope for appealing  Judge Baraitser’s  decision on January 4th prohibiting Julian Assange’s extradition to the US on humanitarian grounds.

Please pay particular attention to this judicial move by DOJ/CPS attempting to unpick the judge’s decision. Do not forget that the US wants to punish Julian Assange for WikiLeaks publications. Stand up for your right to a free press, turn up outside the court and show with your presence that you are prepare to defend Julian Assange against extradition.

Judicial processed are not outside the society that produce them. Neither are they independent of political influence in this political case. Extradition Agreements are primarily political agreements between two states. As governments exercise their influence over the process so can we, within our democratic system. Freedom of Expression is the cornerstone of every democracy. Raise your voice to defend Julian Assange.

The Committee to Defend Julian Assange, answers the call out to protest and is organising the provision of posters, banners, flyers and other materials to supporters.

Please be aware that the timing of the Court hearing has not yet been announced and will only be confirmed on the 10th of August. We will therefore send an update through this newsletter on the 10th.

There is no information currently whether the hearing is open to the public virtually, in person or both. Again, we shall be giving an update regarding this issue on the 10th of August.

In Solidarity #FreeAssange

How to get to the Royal Courts of Justice

Address:           Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Nearest Tube:   Temple (District and Circle Lines)

For further Information please press here  


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

#FreeAssange: Judge Baraitser’s judgement indicates Judge Arbuthnot concealed existence of 2017 arrest warrant for US Extradition in the #AssangeCase – 12 July 2021

Judge Baraitser’s judgement indicates Judge Arbuthnot concealed existence of 2017 arrest warrant for US Extradition in the #AssangeCase

The stated timeline in Judge Vanessa Baraitser’s judgement of No US Extradition for Julian Assange reveals for the first time that Westminster Magistrates Court issued an arrest warrant for Julian Assange on 22/12/2017 after a diplomatic note from the US requested Mr. Assange’s provisional arrest pursuant to a criminal complaint. At the time Judge Emma Arbuthnot was the Chief Magistrate at Westminster Magistrates Court. She would have been aware of the warrant’s existence and would have probably signed it.

The issue of the warrant would have been part of a provisional US extradition request. Yet her rulings of 6/2/18 regarding the proportionality of bringing proceedings against Julian Assange in relation to violation of Bail terms and in particular her second ruling of 13/2/18 on the public interest of such proceedings are reached, are written as if US extradition proceedings had not been initiated in December 2017 and were not under way in the UK at the time of her ruling.


2]  Arbuthnot ruling 2 –  application by Julian Assange 13 Feb. 2018


Screenshot 1 is from District Judge (Magistrates’ Court) Vanessa Baraitser’s January 4th decision, in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court (but based at the Old Bailey).

Screenshot 2 is from Emma Arbuthnot’s Rulling 2 of 13 February 2018 on the public interest arguments of upholding or rescinding a 2012 arrest warrant against Julian Assange.

I have now requested through FOIA a copy of the arrest warrant issued by Westminster Magistrates Court and a copy of the diplomatic note from the Ministry of Justice. I will update this blog once I get a response.

This entry was posted in AssangeWikiLeaks and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.


3 Responses to Judge Baraitser’s judgement indicates Judge Arbuthnot concealed existence of 2017 arrest warrant for US Extradition in the #AssangeCase

  1. butlincat says:

    These characters are a law unto themselves – the majority of which aren’t on the statute books. Even G4S prison staff [a mixture of ex-pub bouncers, criminals and general riff-raff] can’t be prosecuted – they are immune from prosecution, as we found out.
    What’s happened to Julian Assange is an insult to everything decent, thanks to a corrupt judiciary, and connected, including very much the US Justice department, who don’t know the meaning of the word. Blackguards, each and every one! May they reap what they sow, 10-fold.

  2. xx says:

    See political prisoner Aravindan Balakrishnan’s analysis of the British state on October 15 1976:
    1. It is a fascist state
    2.It is an imperialist state
    3. It is an integral part of NATO
    …shown to be 100% correct again and again. He is decades ahead of his time! That’s why he has been framed and imprisoned and is now being tortured in HMP Dartmoor by the Brirush fascist state at the age of 81.

  3. yy says:

    Great investigative work. Thanks Emmy.



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Maurice Kirk: “Road Rage with a Carving Knife?” – the targeting continues 11 July 2021 + archive

Road Rage with a Carving Knife?

by Maurice Kirk

HM Crown Court                                                                                                                             T20200177 Exeter       (Acquitted of Stalking my very own Conservative Member of Parliament)


And to Clerk of Bristol County Court  

                                                   case number:  G00TA1220

8th June 2012                                                             

       Application for a Public Enquiry

Dear Sir/Madam,

  1. Further to my today’s telephone call to establish the police allegation was to apply for a variation of existing restraining order and/or lay information of an alleged ‘contempt of court’, in my apparent detecting and preventing further crime by some Somerset, Dorset and Devon estate agents still running a price fixing ring, I have decided that it may be helpful for those un aware of the full South Wales Police conspiracy to further explain this insulting nonsense.
  • The South Wales Police are ‘hell bent’ on stopping my substantive monetary claims re BS614159 (40 odd failed malicious criminal prosecutions) and 1CF03361 (their also failed malicious criminal prosecution re my ‘trading in prohibited weapons’ including machine gun)!
  • This Exeter further failed South Wales Police malicious criminal prosecution, T20200177 (alleged stalking ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,) was doomed from the start as above.
  • Such is the level of spite as of 2nd June I now face charges including ‘being in possession of a kitchen knife on the M5 motorway’ contrary to section139(1) and (6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and driving ‘without appropriate driving licence’ or Insurance cover’!
  • On or about 8th Jan 2020 South Wales Police begrudgingly attended my Taunton residence for several hours to take my detailed statement of criminal complaint following the violent G4S robbery on me, on 1st November 2019, when being ‘ejected’ from HMP Parc, Bridgend.
  • This was deliberate to confiscate both my legal and medical papers relating to my police civil claims, including against G4S Custody Services, having been a party to fabricated malicious criminal convictions and assaults, whilst in prison and to prolong my 2019 incarceration. The Welsh police recorded message to …………………..MP, recording I had sent to her what was believed to be anthrax spores’ and to Alun Cairns MP possible heroin from my Cardiff prison cell, meant, she was assured, I would not be released in May 2020 but would remain in the prison for at least the rest of the year without the need of any further court of law process!
  •  This Exeter acquittal, denied defence witnesses or exhibits, release of Welsh prison custody records or return of my stolen property by either G4S or South Wales Police was, alone, a gross abuse of process in an attempt to cover-up the level of deceit in our Welsh authorities.
  • All other charges were withdrawn, including my G4S stolen letters to John Graham asking he find me a lawyer confirms, again, many in the South Wales Constabulary are congenital liars. John reminds me of G4S’s conduct re depravation of medicines and medical appointments.
  • During the course of Exeter’s jury trial, it was revealed that Welsh prison staff had unlawfully locked me in the Cardiff prison F Wing’s lavatory, in my wheelchair for 32 minutes, while four officers with drug dogs stole a sizeable quantity of my legal papers and letters to my then MPs and NEVER returned them. Even my specific court applications nothing was returned from Wales with admission even the CPS (Bristol) was refused it as it was incriminating evidence.
  1. It was abundantly clear to the South Wales Police that the primary cause of the G4S robbery, also including theft of my two wheelchairs, clothes and shoes, was to snatch back my Dr T W and other similarly concocted medical records of Glanrhyd Hospital (Caswell Clinic) specifically sent to me by Dr Gaynor Jones to HMP Parc. It is now proven those falsified medical records deny the return of my commercial pilot’s licences and membership to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, ie income, falsified under South Wales Police blackmail.
  1. I do not suffer from ‘significant brain damage’ as unqualified Dr T W had insisted, PDD, ‘Paranoid Delusional Disorder’ nor conducted myself, confirmed by HM Crown Prosecution Service, time and again, to have warranted, in June 2009, my registered MAPPA level 3 Category 3 (within top 5% most dangerous in the UK), a pariah to my own children.
  1. My 2010 civil trial, BS614159, clashed with the prohibited weapons trial, deliberately, as it was to be heard with 300 plus witnesses, which was, in any event, blocked by the then Chief Constable of the South Wales Constabulary, Barbara Wilding, for my alternative life remaining in Ashworth’s high security psychiatric hospital. The ‘machinegun’ conspiracy jury trial only carried a mandatory 10-year prison term so South Wales Police concocted the MP fairy tale.
  1. In 2020 I therefore had to file unlimited damages claims, including G00TA220, in Taunton’s High Court for a minimum million pounds against the Welsh prisons’ joint nefarious conduct with the South Wales Police by having to deposit a non-returnable £10,000 court fee.
  1.  I proved in Exeter’s prosecution’s insulting evidence, by cross examination of the few prosecution’s witnesses I was allowed, that the South Wales Police, Operations ‘Tilt,’ ‘Bridger’, ‘Daisy’ and ‘Challis’ etc had all taken part, again, in perverting the course of justice all originating from an NHS sacked Dr T W for refusing to correct his 19th Oct 09 medical report.
  1. There requires a public enquiry into this unusual and extreme conduct of a Welsh Authority


Maurice J Kirk BVSc

[Is this a case of a bullying policeman or ‘sour grapes’ following my recent Exeter acquittal?]

Incidentally, two pre-war Taylorcraft for sale £8000 &Breton cottage £20,000

Maurice Kirk | July 11, 2021 at 8:02 am


Archive [here] continues [from 2011]

Maurice’s site / updates from: “Flying Vet challenges South Wales Police”


Share this!

Share this!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 1 Comment