When Assange is put in the equivalent of a fish tank in a court room b/c he is a prisoner at a Category A prison, and the judge says he has to be in the tank b/c he's a Cat. A prisoner, it's an illogical, circular argument. GaslightingAssange+Team
When Assange is put in the fish tank, he has as much of a voice as a fish in the tank. When he protests this, the judge basically says (redux): It's not that bad, we'll work around your issues with it, but won't budge on this dehumanising practice. We'll stretch out the hearing.
We'll drain your resources financially, emotionally, legally and we will obstruct your access to lawyers, then give you a half hour here, a half hour there to show how reasonable we are. GaslightingAssange+Team
We'll put you in a straightjacket legally, then stick you in a fish tank where you can't communicate, and then we'll spend your legal budget getting you to explain the obvious. We'll make it all seem normal and that it's standard practice. GaslightingAssange+Team
Gaslighting involves: Lies, lies and more lies. Then when someone challenges the lies, the liar gets the last word and it appears that everything is up for debate, but in the end, it's all about opinions, not facts not truth not law. GaslightingAssange+TEam
Classic domestic violence tactics: Usually the guy wears down the self esteem of the female so she normalises her lower status and puts up with stuff she should not. Then the abuser, looks at her to hear "how she is doing"? when the abuser is asking to gauge his successful abuse.
Arbitrary rules -- you can use this toaster, but not that spoon. You can go through this door but not that one. You are in a fish tank b/c you're a fish. You're in a security dock b/c you are a dangerous criminal. GET USED TO IT! GaslightingAssange+Team
Interesting parallels in this article. Do a search on gaslighting techniques, then apply it to GaslightingAssange
vox.com/first-person/2…
vox.com/first-person/2…
The thing is...
They are doing it to the whole legal team as well as Assange.
The US + UK are gaslighting all the defence lawyers.
GaslightingAssange
They are doing it to the whole legal team as well as Assange.
The US + UK are gaslighting all the defence lawyers.
GaslightingAssange
The abuser tries to alter the victims' sense of reality.
ie. alters a person's sense of basic dignity, expectations of due process, rule of law, proportioning / assigning culpability, ability to think.
ie. alters a person's sense of basic dignity, expectations of due process, rule of law, proportioning / assigning culpability, ability to think.
"...“to gaslight” refers to the act of undermining another person’s reality by denying facts, the environment around them, or their feelings. Targets of gaslighting are manipulated into turning against their cognition, their emotions, and who they fundamentally are as people."
The victims (GaslightingAssange+Team) have spent time, resources and altered their caseloads to challenge the outlandish practice of putting Assange in a fish tank. Judge responds by refusing to acknowledge that it’s even happening, she is gaslighting them.
The weirdness of it increases when Assange's adversary (US prosecutor) sides with Assange and legal team that it would be reasonable to let him out of the fish tank. It is an additional layer of a mind-*uck. GaslightingAssange
Then the public, attending journalists etc. also gradually give in to the GaslightingAssange. It's important that we all learn how to spot gaslighting techniques, shut them down and minimize the psychological impact -- as well as financial and time impacts.
"When left unexamined, gaslighting can have a devastating + long-term impact on our emotional, psychological, and sometimes physical well-being."
As John Shipton (Assange's father) said, the hearing serves to continue the psychological torture which has been reported + verified.
As John Shipton (Assange's father) said, the hearing serves to continue the psychological torture which has been reported + verified.
Even the @UN Rapporteur on Torture is being Gaslit. He examined Assange according to international protocols, wrote a report, followed up when UK, Sweden and US replied initially denying his findings, now they stonewall him.
@NilsMelzer GaslightingAssange
@NilsMelzer GaslightingAssange
A refusal to acknowledge that it is even happening is a tell-tale indicator that Gaslighting is happening.
UK refuses to acknowledge it is torturing Assange, breaching intern'l law, being corrupt and biased against him.
GaslightingAssange
UK refuses to acknowledge it is torturing Assange, breaching intern'l law, being corrupt and biased against him.
GaslightingAssange
There are long term effects from being gaslit over many years. It is an essential tool in an abuser's arsenal. It is an essential tool of *psychological torture*.
GaslightingAssange
GaslightingAssange
"When left unexamined, gaslighting can have a devastating and long-term impact on our emotional, psychological, and sometimes physical well-being."
Robin Stern wrote a book on this topic, specifically in relation to Trump gaslighting the world, and Americans in particular.
Robin Stern wrote a book on this topic, specifically in relation to Trump gaslighting the world, and Americans in particular.
"...specifically, the constant lies from the Trump administration while his supporters trumpeted his fast and loose twisting of reality."
Trump (US, UK -- same team) are gaslighting Assange. It is perfectly obvious.
Trump (US, UK -- same team) are gaslighting Assange. It is perfectly obvious.
The term gaslighting became more known after the 1944 movie "Gas Light"
"In the film, husband Gregory manipulates his adoring, trusting wife Paula into believing she can no longer trust her own perceptions of reality."
GaslightingAssange
"In the film, husband Gregory manipulates his adoring, trusting wife Paula into believing she can no longer trust her own perceptions of reality."
GaslightingAssange
eg."... Gregory causes the gaslights in the house to flicker by turning them on in the attic of the house. Yet when Paula asks why the gaslights are flickering, he insists that it’s not really happening and that it’s all in her mind, causing her to doubt her self-perception."
"Gaslighting in interpersonal relationships often develops or builds on an existing power dynamic. While it’s most common in romantic settings, gaslighting can happen in any kind of relationship ...
"where one person is so important to the other that they don’t want to take the chance of upsetting or losing them (a boss, friend, sibling, or parent). "
GaslightingAssange -- UK court cases are extremely important to Assange and legal team. Power imbalance to start with.
GaslightingAssange -- UK court cases are extremely important to Assange and legal team. Power imbalance to start with.
"Gaslighting happens in relationships where there is an unequal power dynamic and the target has given the gaslighter power and often their respect."
Assange is outflanked, fighting an army of UK + US lawyers, contractors, paid psychologists spy companies computer geeks.
Assange is outflanked, fighting an army of UK + US lawyers, contractors, paid psychologists spy companies computer geeks.
The US hired psychologists to design the most harmful psychological, physical and relational damage possible for Guantanamo. You could bet with %100 confidence that psychologists are monitoring / surveilling Assange and his legal team for their reactions to GaslightingAssange.
The abuser(s) respond to the victim(s)' protests or legitimate complaints with contempt-- or in the case of Assange + judge, with fake displays of "concern" or checking in on him. It is pejorative and comes from a "superior" mindset, lording it over him and his legal team.
"[A]n important gaslighting technique: Undermining a partner’s emotions and feelings is a way to deny their reality. Continuous invalidity of how the other partner feels about a situation is just as effective as saying their perceptions are wrong."
The US + UK in particular are doing this to @NilsMelzer
"The emotional chopping away during those moments has the effect of convincing the other person that they could be imagining or “making up” scenarios that don’t exist, when in all reality, what that person is feeling or experiencing is real."
"Matthew Zawadzki, PhD, noted in his 2014 article on the topic, gaslighting techniques “radically undermine another person that she has nowhere left to stand from which to disagree, no standpoint from which her words might constitute genuine disagreement.”
My sense of events from the past week are good egs:
Assange can't hear properly (he's in the fish tank with no headphones and judge is talking at extremely low volume, US prosecutor set his microphone aside"...
but the judge blames his supporters (noisey), not the PA system.
Assange can't hear properly (he's in the fish tank with no headphones and judge is talking at extremely low volume, US prosecutor set his microphone aside"...
but the judge blames his supporters (noisey), not the PA system.
Punctuality is important so Assange prepares early for his hearing )gets dressed in a suit, haircut and looking respectable), so the prison staff strip search him on a Category A, scrotum, anal, oral search to humiliate him...
He is rushed around, woken up early (guessing here), hurry up, hurry up... now wait. Wait longer. Get undressed. Open your mouth, bend over, spread your buttocks, lift your scrotum, pull back your foreskin. Get dressed...
Then. You're LATE! You are always late. Start w/out you.
Then. You're LATE! You are always late. Start w/out you.
Assange is put in a glass box (fish tank), can't hear properly, can't interact privately with his lawyers, he protests, his legal team protests, judge does not acknowledge the validity of the complaints even though it is obvious it undermines his right to a fair hearing...
Judge pretends to be open to changing the outlandish restrictions, tells the lawyers to submit their case the next day, shows up with a pre-determined *script* which she knows she will read in advance, regardless of arguments presented. Get used to it.
What I am saying is this: The hearings are an extension of psychological torture which extends to his lawyers.
Assange was spied upon. His lawyers are/have been spied upon. There are no opportunities for privacy. His legal papers are taken away on Day 1 of hearing.
Assange was spied upon. His lawyers are/have been spied upon. There are no opportunities for privacy. His legal papers are taken away on Day 1 of hearing.
The validity of these complaints is called into question. Not the actual complaints. Basically, the rule becomes -- Don't bother complaining. Your opinion is your opinion but it's not valid. You are just paranoid.
Assange and his LAWYERS are all targets of an elaborate strategy to GaslightingAssange.
It is more than propaganda. It is designed to confuse the victims and bystanders and then portray Assange + defence team as crazy or "complaining".
Lies get amplified. Truth is flexible.
It is more than propaganda. It is designed to confuse the victims and bystanders and then portray Assange + defence team as crazy or "complaining".
Lies get amplified. Truth is flexible.
That is why I posted the photo that was circulating online showing Assange in the fish tank. A picture is worth a thousand words, and the UK court knows this, so they want to prosecute whomever took the pic + posted it. It verifies *abuse of power*. It's right there.
The UK can't bend the reality that it is disproportionately punishing Assange, torturing him, dehumanising him and denying him his right to legal counsel/ access during court proceedings. It's right there. He's in a fish tank.
But. Why is @Twitter @twittersupport not allowing me to copy / paste the photo for the public to see? Is it pornographic? Violent? Racist? No.
It is a snapshot that validates Assange's protests to assert his human rights.
It is being censored b/c it exposes UK justice fraud.
It is a snapshot that validates Assange's protests to assert his human rights.
It is being censored b/c it exposes UK justice fraud.
AssangeCase
GaslightingAssange
FreeAssange
Gaslighting: "It’s about knocking one’s understanding of reality off balance."
Is Assange in a straightjacket? Yes.
Is he in a fish tank? Yes.
Are his lawyers handicapped by UK courts and this judge? Yes.
GaslightingAssange
Is Assange in a straightjacket? Yes.
Is he in a fish tank? Yes.
Are his lawyers handicapped by UK courts and this judge? Yes.
GaslightingAssange
GaslightingAssange:
It's abusive. It's manipulative. It is distortion, distortion and draining all of his resources to validate what's happening.
It's abusive. It's manipulative. It is distortion, distortion and draining all of his resources to validate what's happening.
During the 4 day US Extradition hearing, the Judge gaslit Assange and everyone who supported or defended him. She minimised his concerns (fish tank, strip searches, starting court without him, interruptions to defence arguments) and she BLATANTLY sided with the US prosecutors.
She favoured the US prosecutorial team (see @CraigMurrayOrg daily reports), added to their arguments, did not interject when they were presenting and used different tones of voice toward the prosecution + defence legal teams.
The US prosecutors are repeating false headlines, handing them out in media packets and electronic versions to
*Implant False Memories into Other People's Heads* and into the public record.
Body count for Assange, zero
Body count for US murders, collateral deaths, millions.
*Implant False Memories into Other People's Heads* and into the public record.
Body count for Assange, zero
Body count for US murders, collateral deaths, millions.
So the US prosecutors spend an hour or two explaining that they will not be effected by the AssangeCase, does not include the publication of Collateral Murder (which exposes war crimes definitively) and takes the evidence off the table. But it is a lie.
Power imbalance gets worse b/c the perspective or experiences of the victims (including his lawyers, family, friends) is dismissed. Problem? There's no problem. He's not in a fish tank. He can pass notes to his lawyers. He has access to legal meetings. He's not being surveiled.
Deny. Distort. Dismiss.
Repeat.
Implant false stories.
Deny reality. Distort reality.
Dismiss legitimate concerns.
Problem? What problem? There's no problem.
Repeat.
Implant false stories.
Deny reality. Distort reality.
Dismiss legitimate concerns.
Problem? What problem? There's no problem.
AssangeCase
READ:
Big eg. of GaslightingAssange:
US-UK Treaty (2007) is the basis for extraditing Assange + includes a bar (rule against) extraditing for political reasons.
UK has an Extradition Act (2003) Law that governs all extraditions in and out of UK with many different countries.
cont.
US-UK Treaty (2007) is the basis for extraditing Assange + includes a bar (rule against) extraditing for political reasons.
UK has an Extradition Act (2003) Law that governs all extraditions in and out of UK with many different countries.
cont.
The Treaty and the Law (Act) go together. The UK has treaties with different countries or groups of countries (EU). If there is not a treaty, then the extradition act / law cannot apply to an extradition case. There is a law, then there are treaties that outline each protocol.
So, the US wants to extradite Assange out of the UK.
The UK has a Law (Extradition Act) that it uses for suspects in a bunch of countries. The UK must refer to the Treaty for each country to administer the extradition. The UK-US Treaty is the outline for doing that.
The UK has a Law (Extradition Act) that it uses for suspects in a bunch of countries. The UK must refer to the Treaty for each country to administer the extradition. The UK-US Treaty is the outline for doing that.
But! (Here is the GaslightingAssange part:
The US-UK Treaty is the basis for getting Assange to the US BUT
The US-UK Treaty has a protection or bar against extradition for political reasons, which would bar Assange from being extradited to US.
BUT! UK-US both claim ...
The US-UK Treaty is the basis for getting Assange to the US BUT
The US-UK Treaty has a protection or bar against extradition for political reasons, which would bar Assange from being extradited to US.
BUT! UK-US both claim ...
UK + US both claim that the TREATY is not incorporated into UK LAW (Extradition Act), even though Parliament says it is.
The UK + US want to apply the Treaty to "get Assange" but won't allow his lawyers to apply that same document to "protect Assange".
The UK + US want to apply the Treaty to "get Assange" but won't allow his lawyers to apply that same document to "protect Assange".
The Treaty is either in effect
or
The Treaty is not in effect.
If it is in effect, then the US + UK will administer the extradition hearing according to the Treaty.
If it is not in effect, THE US HAS NO BASIS TO EXTRADITE ASSANGE.
or
The Treaty is not in effect.
If it is in effect, then the US + UK will administer the extradition hearing according to the Treaty.
If it is not in effect, THE US HAS NO BASIS TO EXTRADITE ASSANGE.
The GaslightingAssange point is this:
The US + UK can't say 2 contradictory things about the Treaty.
If the US-UK say it's not "in play", then it's game over (hockey analogy).
If the US-UK say it's in play, Assange is entitled to protections outlined therein.
The US + UK can't say 2 contradictory things about the Treaty.
If the US-UK say it's not "in play", then it's game over (hockey analogy).
If the US-UK say it's in play, Assange is entitled to protections outlined therein.
The UK along with the US are concocting sub-rules and fudging the truth about the legal basis of any Assange extradition.
They are distorting the force of the Treaty, manipulating how it should or should not be applied and feel entitled to improvise during the court hearing.
They are distorting the force of the Treaty, manipulating how it should or should not be applied and feel entitled to improvise during the court hearing.
The non-sensical nature of these contortions is the GaslightingAssange and Team.
If you revert back to Assange in Ecuador's embassy:
Why didn't the US try to extradite him directly from Ecuador's diplomatic premises which are technically Ecuador?
There is no Ecuador-UK extradition Treaty.
But there is a US-UK Treaty.
Why didn't the US try to extradite him directly from Ecuador's diplomatic premises which are technically Ecuador?
There is no Ecuador-UK extradition Treaty.
But there is a US-UK Treaty.
So that's the summary of a lot of court time last week in the AssangeCase.
Almost everything the US and UK said, how they conducted themselves or treated the defendant / defence team needs to be viewed from GaslightingAssange schema.
Almost everything the US and UK said, how they conducted themselves or treated the defendant / defence team needs to be viewed from GaslightingAssange schema.
The effect of GaslightingAssange is to send his defence team into a massive tizzy, huge archaeological legal hunt, more time and $resources spent to rebut the distortions, lies or ill treatment. This was outlined in Paul Close (CPS) emails back in 2011. Assange team OVER-delivers
So, shorter rebuttals, calling out the GaslightingAssange behaviour, or abbreviating the non-sense which is now predictable may be the best approach. Put the gaslighting behaviour ON THE RECORD, lose this hearing phase (foregone conclusion) and ramp up for Supreme Court Appeal.
A priority would be to get Assange out of the fish tank, refuse to allow this conduct to be normalized. Refuse to normalize lack of legal access, privacy + his confinement in prison. Fight for his human rights or he will die. Bad ending to Extradition process. GaslightingAssange
ie. Ecuador did not have an Extradition Treaty with the UK, so it would not have been possible to extradite him from there.
The US + UK cannot base the extradition request for Assange on a Treaty, then start eliminating sections from that very Treaty which may benefit or protect Assange. That is arbitrary. On their whim. To their advantage. Makes power imbalance worse.
I started a thing last week: "Today's Arbitrary Report" on the AssangeCase because that is the basis of every GaslightingAssange technique implemented.
So what happened if Ecuador did not have an extradition treaty with the UK? Two ambassadors met in Germany to work out a deal to hand Assange over from Ecuador to the UK which does have a Treaty. How? They contacted Dept of Justice, got a verbal pledge "no death penalty" Assange.
READ this article: @CassandraRules got into a lot of trouble for actually reading it, then tweeting her opinions or hypotheses about it. READ IT NOW. abcnews.go.com/politics/us-ga…
Ecuador hand over verbal pledge. AssangeCase
Ecuador hand over verbal pledge. AssangeCase
The process of moving Assange out of the Ecuadorian Embassy started on March 7, 2018, when the Ecuadorians made their first request to the U.K.: a letter asking for written assurances that the U.K. would not extradite Assange to a country where he could face the death penalty...
They then entered into "covert back-channel negotiations" with the Dept of Justice with orders from Trump.
AssangeCase
AssangeCase
Easy version/ my Redux: "Meet me in Germany", then we'll go from there.
AssangeCase hand over.
AssangeCase hand over.
Who met in Germany? Two ambassadors that were stationed in Berlin.
The Ecuadorean Ambassador "Dalmau" and the American Ambassador "Grenell". It was convenient and Grenell had the ear/ trust and authority from Trump.
The Ecuadorean Ambassador "Dalmau" and the American Ambassador "Grenell". It was convenient and Grenell had the ear/ trust and authority from Trump.
"Ecuador's direct outreach to the U.S. came six months later, [Sept 2018] through the country’s ambassador to Germany, Manuel Mejia Dalmau, according to U.S. and Ecuadorian officials. " ...
"Dalmau sought a private "emergency meeting" in Berlin with the U.S. Ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, viewed as one of President Donald Trump’s closest envoys in Europe, the officials said."
"The challenge the Ecuadorans faced in turning him over to British officials, though, was the prospect of Assange facing the death penalty, which Ecuador strongly opposes. Dalmau was blunt in his request, according to U.S. and Ecuadorian officials."
During one meeting, Dalmau [Ecuadorean amb. to Germany] asked whether the U.S. would commit to not putting Assange to death, according to a senior US. official.
Grenell [US ambassador to Germany]then contacted the U.S Justice Department [...]
Grenell [US ambassador to Germany]then contacted the U.S Justice Department [...]
"Grenell then contacted the U.S Justice Department to see if he could provide assurances that the U.S. government would not seek the death penalty." [of Assange if he got extradited to the US].
"According to the senior U.S. official, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein consented. That enabled Grenell to make the pledge. The agreement between the U.S. and Ecuador was a verbal one, according to a source in the Ecuadoran government." AssangeCase
"U.S. Justice Department officials would not confirm that the U.S. agreed to take any sentence off the table. But they pointedly noted that the charge the U.S unsealed against Assange does not represent a capital offense and carries a maximum of five years in prison."
Note from Jude: More charges were added after this. Assange now faces 18 charges in total with a combined potential prison sentence of 170 yrs.
In the US, treason and espionage qualify for the death penalty, so that changes everything for AssangeCase.
OK. Now that you've read all of that, listen to a phone call @CassandraRules got after she read that article and tweeted "unclassified" stuff, (which the guy confirms) pscp.tv/w/1ZkKzLgobAyJv She was threatened with jail.
AssangeCase
AssangeCase
It's time for a Judicial Review and Contempt of Court complaint.
GaslightingAssange
GaslightingAssange
Assange was placed in a prison for dangerous offenders for no reason and he’s designated too dangerous to participate in his own trial b/c he’s in a prison for dangerous offenders. Both the defense and the prosecution agree that this is absurd yet the judge ruled agnst them both.
Above tweet from @caitoz article: medium.com/@caityjohnston…
Quick eg. Police tactic of "Kettling" Assange while he was in Ecuador's embassy. It was used with Occupy Wall St. Block protesters, then arrest them. GaslightingAssange
Corral a person, tell them they are free to leave, but then arrest them. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettling GaslightingAssange
Mixed messages, confusion, distortion
Mixed messages, confusion, distortion
Also: We'll stir you up, cause you to ruminate, deny you paperwork and solicitor - client meetings, then you will "over-deliver" in your arguments in court, when it is perfectly obvious that the judge and US prosecutor are either incorrect or lying.
Addendum: All the fake reasons Ecuador's president gave to expel Assange were all GaslightingAssange lies and character assassinations. Disgusting. Lenin Moreno.
