Habeas Corpus

Justice & Democracy

The creation of a European Union Police State
By Gerard Batten MEP

“Habeas Corpus and trial by jury are the supreme protection of ordinary people from the state. The power of the executive to cast a man in prison without formulating a charge, or deny him the judgement by his peers, is the odious foundation of totalitarian governments”
Winston Churchill

Exactly twenty years ago I read the Maastricht Treaty (Treaty on European Union). It read like the surrender document of a defeated nation. I was so appalled it inspired me to go into active politics and help form the UK Independence Party. At the time I, and my UKIP colleagues, were regarded as ‘alarmists’ at the very least when we warned where the great European project was heading. The things we warned against have come to pass and worse is yet to come.

Now almost every major area of public policy is either already under the control of the European Union or soon to be so: from Agriculture and Fishing; Health and Safety; Environment; Transport; Immigration and Asylum; Energy; Tourism; to Space and Sport; to name just a few. Under the Lisbon Treaty there is a common Foreign Policy leading to a common Security and Defence policy - Britain’s armed forces are being systematically run down in order to absorb them into a ‘common European defence identity’. One of the first actions of the Coalition Government was to sign a treaty with the French to share an aircraft carrier.

Membership of the European Union costs Britain billions of pounds every year in direct contributions to the EU Budget and in indirect and unnecessary costs on the economy. In return we have lost control of our own democracy. A report by the German parliament in 2006 calculated that about 84% of new laws now originate in the EU. We are no longer a free or independent country in any meaningful sense. And now we see undemocratic economic and financial Government being imposed on countries like Greece in order to shore up the euro at any cost. Anyone who believes that the European Union is anything other than a political project to create a centralised undemocratic European state is either lying to themselves or to others.

Many of those still aware of our constitutional history, and of Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and Habeas Corpus, may think that their basic freedoms are still protected under the law. Well they are wrong. Our most basic freedoms are being undermined and destroyed by the creation of an EU system of criminal law. This is being done by stealth, introduced gradually piece by piece until the intended jig-saw fits together as a whole.

...[the outrageous EAW against] Dr. Meizoso: a “criminal” yet to commit his impossible crime

My constituent Dr. Miguel-Angel Meizoso is wanted in [Majorca] Spain on a private complaint for a fraud he has not yet committed – but allegedly that he wants to commit in the future.

In Spain, Dr. Meizoso is the president of a government-backed foundation taking care of a valuable historic estate in Majorca. It is alleged that while setting up the foundation, he deceived the previous owner of the estate about its purpose: he claimed it was a public service, while his real plan was to sell the property and run away with the money. Under the Spanish law, such a plan would be utterly unrealistic: a president of a ‘public interest’ foundation cannot just sell its objects! Of course, Dr. Meizoso has not taken or contemplated any steps in that direction.

He believes the absurd EAW against him results from a corrupt scheme devised in the local government for the benefit of property developers, who want to lay their hands on the estate. They have taken advantage of the antiquated Spanish system of criminal procedure, where a single Investigative Magistrate may issue an arrest warrant on a private complaint, without any scrutiny or examination of evidence. If surrendered, Dr. Meizoso may spend up to two years in prison without charge or trial.

The English court has now ordered his extradition. In this desperate situation, my constituent appealed to me, and we have helped him to continue resistance in a very unorthodox way. The Extradition Act includes a special privilege against extradition of asylum-seekers; so he applied for political asylum, and I wrote to the Home Secretary supporting this.

It is obviously unusual to ask for asylum having lived in Britain for over 20 years; and this is probably the first time that a EU citizen asks asylum from the EU just like from any other foreign dictatorship. Yet, we have now reached an insane situation where he can only protect his liberty by becoming an asylum-seeker in his own country. He is, I fear, not the last one who will have to Freedom, Security & Justice? or The Creation of a European Union Police State 37 do that. Even so, his future still hangs in the balance, as his asylum case is about to be considered by the High Court.

...read the full report clicking here.

Read also:
Los jueces: los Faraones del reino de España...
El sistema judicial español, una ruleta rusa. Y al ciudadano, que no se le ocurra rechistar. El problema del sistema judicial español no es sólo de medios, ni sólo de dependencia política, entre otras. Lo fundamental es que hoy los jueces están más allá de cualquier Norma o Ley. Tienen potestad, de hecho, para hacer y deshacer con total arbitrariedad e impunidad. Cualquier Ley o Norma está sujeta a la voluntad del juez, una voluntad que se ejerce de modo arbitrario...
Una canallada: el gobierno hecha la culpa del déficit a los españoles y no al despilfarro y corrupcióm endémicas de la parasitaria clase política y sus millones de acomodados por nepotismo...
Baleares, el epicentro de todas las corrupciones
Una canallada: el gobierno español hecha la culpa del déficit a los españoles y no al despilfarro y corrupcióm endémicas de la parasitaria clase política y sus millones de acomodados por nepotismo...

Joint intervention by Gerard Batten MEP and Vladimir Bukovsky in the Supreme Court case of Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority

SUMMARY

The application to intervene and a 20-page submission have been lodged in the Supreme Court.

As a UKIP MEP for London since 2004, Gerard Batten has been a prominent critic of the European Arrest Warrant, which he sees as a grave threat to civil liberties. He was involved in public campaigns over controversial EAW cases, especially those of his constituents Andrew Symeou and Miguel-Angel Meizoso. He made a detailed written submission for the recent extradition review by Sir Scott Baker’s panel, and published a critical pamphlet attacking the panel’s report.

Vladimir Bukovsky was one of the founders of the human rights movement in the Soviet Union in 1960s and 1970s and one of the most prominent Soviet political prisoners for 12 years. He was released from prison and famously exchanged for a Chilean communist leader in 1976, and lives in the UK since 1978. He was a key expert witness in the landmark Constitutional Court case in Russia Communist Party v President Yeltsin (1992), where the communist rule was condemned as unconstitutional and incompatible with the rule of law. In his more recent books and articles, he argues that the European Union is in danger of developing into a new Soviet Union, and singled out the European Arrest Warrant as a particular threat to human rights.

The joint interveners are represented by Paul Diamond, a top human rights barrister.

Submission: The Interveners invite the Supreme Court to go beyond the narrow procedural issues of the Assange case, and use this opportunity to reform the law on the European Arrest Warrant to safeguard civil liberties.

The High Court has ruled that a Swedish prosecutor should be regarded as a ‘judicial authority’ for the purposes of the Extradition Act 2003, and therefore can lawfully issue an EAW against Mr. Assange. The Supreme Court will reconsider that judgement on 1-2 February.

The Interveners argue that the judgement against Mr. Assange, like many earlier judgements in EAW cases (e.g. in the infamous case of Andrew Symeou – see para 26 of the submission), is incompatible with fundamental principles of English constitution. It distorts the meaning of the words in an Act of Parliament and thus undermines parliamentary sovereignty. It misinterprets the law in order to suit the EU’s political objective of creating a common ‘area of freedom, security and justice’, substituting the rule of law for the ‘rule of ideology’. Elevating a prosecutor to the rank of a ‘judicial authority’ contradicts the principle which had been held sacred in the English common law since ancient times: nobody can be a judge in his own case.

The submission reads in paras 35-39:

By their very nature, law and ideology are direct opposites. The law is all about enforcing clear rules; an ideology is all about pursuing vague ideals. The law is naturally static; an ideology is naturally dynamic. An ideology is always a legend, a dream; it explains itself in metaphors; it strives to change the world and boldly challenges the dull reality. The whole object of law, by contrast, is to be as clear and precise as possible. The law has to be realistic, take due account of the imperfections of the universe, and express itself in plain language. Consequently, whilst ideology may well inspire legislators to make the law and the citizens to obey it, one cannot write an ideology itself into the law – no more than the medieval scholasts could calculate exactly how many angels can dance together on the point of the same needle.

One of the Interveners, Mr. Bukovsky, had the misfortune of being born in the Soviet Union, where the rule of ideology had completely subdued the rule of law. He was one of the leading figures in the human rights movement, whose sole purpose was to affirm the rule of law over the ideology against all the odds, even though the entire repressive machine of the state was against them. He spent 12 years in the Soviet Gulag because his legal arguments carried no weight in the Soviet courts dominated by ideology. The judgements against him had been written ahead of the trial by the Communist Party and only rubber-stamped by the judges. His goal at every trial was not to be acquitted, but the show the travesty of justice for what it was. In brief, he had the benefit of exploring this basic dichotomy of jurisprudence most thoroughly in the cells of KGB prisons. Today, with growing horror, he once again observes an ideology – the EU ideology – slowly but surely undermining the rule of law in this country.

The difference between the rule of law and of an ideology is precisely what distinguishes a democracy from a totalitarian regime. It was of necessity the central legal issue of Nuremberg trial. It was also the central legal issue in the Russian case of Communist Party v President Yeltsin (1992), where the Constitutional Court called upon Mr. Bukovsky’s expertise on the issue. It is a basic problem of the sharia law, which includes the Islamic religion as its most fundamental part. And indeed, your Lordships’ great predecessors have been through the same dichotomy, most famously in Bowman v Secular Society. They held that while the English law was undoubtedly a Christian law, the Christian religion itself was not a part of it. The phrase ‘Christianity is a part of the law of England’, even though it had been affirmed by most eminent legal authorities of the past centuries, was ‘rhetoric’ and not law.
It may or may not be possible to reconcile the conflicting principles of the British and European law. It is manifestly impossible to reconcile the British or any other law with the EU’s or any other ideology. The European Communities Act 1972 incorporates the body of European law into the British law; it did not and could not elevate the EU political principles to the rank of law.

In this sense, the High Court judgement against the Appellant not merely conflicts with the express provisions of the statute and the Framework Decision; it undermines the rule of law itself. A court of law may not answer a legal question by first enquiring what kind of answer would bring us closer to the ‘European dream’, ‘ever closer union’, or ‘a common area of freedom, security and justice’. All those may be very sound political ideas, or just utopian claptrap. Many would passionately advocate one or the other view of them.

This debate may go on forever or may be resolved tomorrow – but whatever happens, this debate belongs outside the courtroom. The courts should be concerned with the law alone.

Contacts:
Mr. Batten MEP
Mr. Bukovsky
Mr. Pavel Stroilov (to discuss the contents of the submission that you can read clicking here)
Read also:
'The Soviet Roots of European Integration' by Bukovsky and Stroilov

Click here to read the infamous speech by Mr Graham Watson MEP, "Godfather" of the unfair EAW thanking terrorist Osama Ben Laden for helping him to obtain this piece of Fascist legislation
And click here to read the BBC Parliamentary Channel interview to MEPs like Mr Watson who now acknowledge their EAW is unfair and needs urgent reform

And visit Fair Trials International website

Gerard Batten MEP :
Response to Lord Baker’s Review Panel on the European Arrest Warrant

The 'extradition review' report produced by Lord Baker's panel can only be described as whitewash. The panel gives its total approval to the system of automatically surrendering free British citizens on the force of a piece of paper issued by any member state of the European Union.

The cases where the EAW has led to horrific miscarriages of justice are notorious, from Andrew Symeou to Julian Assange, and from the 'Crete Five' to Dr. Meizoso. I detailed these cases in my own submission to the panel. Lord Baker and his colleagues not only ignored them but now assert something that is simply untrue, they claim: 'No evidence was presented to us to suggest that European arrest warrants are being issued in cases where there is insufficient evidence'. My submission alone gives evidence of many such cases.

The panel has given a green light to similar abuses in the future. Our courts will continue to be compelled to send any British citizen to any other EU member state simply on the strength of a piece of paper. As I have said on many occasions before, extradition, now merely ‘judicial surrender’ has been reduced to a mere bureaucratic formality, to 'tick-box justice', where the role of British judges is reduced to checking that the EAW form is filled correctly. The panel had an opportunity to recommend this ends but instead will now bear responsibility for the ruined lives of innocent victims in the future.

The report invites us to place our hopes into empty promises of the EU bureaucracy to improve the system at some point in the future, making it more 'proportionate'. Proportionality is a red herring: ‘proportionality’ would not have prevented any of those notorious abuses and will solve nothing. The fundamental problem with the EAW is that British courts are not allowed to based their decision to extradite on the prima facie evidence against the accused and have no real power to refuse extradition, even when it is obvious to the court that a grave injustice is being done.

It is the first duty of the UK government to protect the ancient liberties of UK citizens; first and foremost to protect our countrymen from arbitrary arrest and persecution. Leaving this to the EU is irresponsible to say the least. The government must now adhere to its past commitment to dismantle the New Labour 'police state' innovations. They should reject Lord Baker's recommendations and abolish the EAW urgently and unilaterally. At the very least, it must opt-out of the EAW as the system will be re-negotiated in 2014.

...more information in the following website: UK Independence Party - Gerard Batten MEP
English translation of article in main Spanish newspaper El Mundo
ARCHIPIEL GULASCH
by Roman Pina Valls
Kodama, Majorca and the dough

I hope nobody lost the article “The Patrimony of Blindness” by Ramon Aguiló Obrador published yesterday in the printed edition, in which he reflects on the case Kodama versus Fernandez-Mallo.

Ramón [Aguiló Obrador] wrote: “(Kodama) married Borges in Paraguay violating the Argentine and Paraguayan laws on divorce and bigamy, which cast serious doubts on her claimed legal status of widow”.

This is not the first time that I hear Kodama´s title of widow being challenged. Another victim of Maria Kodama has spend years denouncing that she is a “false widow of Borges”. I speak of Miguel Angel Meizoso, a man who has much to say to the world and to Majorca.

We are going to leave for another moment what Meizoso has to tell the world. It is old and painful, and it affects well-known personalities, who may have contributed to violate human rights by their negligence. The last 31 years Meizoso has been unable to see his daughters.

What he has to tell Majorca has to do with Borges. Meizoso chairs a foundation3 which owns a estate in Valldemossa, Can Mossenya, that was created to protect that estate, in which he organized an international symposium on Borges. But Meizoso has been unable to set foot in Majorca for years now, because a few Mafiosi, according to his words, want to undo the Foundation. 

And they have managed that the administration of “Justice” investigates him for something really unusual and undemonstrable: to have created a foundation to enrich himself. That is to say, for a future crime. It seems that what Meizoso has done is to put much of his money into protecting Can Mossenya. And he deeply regrets to have done it.

Meizoso is a doctor in Psychology and lives in London. He has declared that Kodama has participated in this campaign of defamation, trying to prevent him from leading any association of Friends of Borges, and that she team with Jaume Matas, Rosa Estarás, the town mayor Joan Muntaner Marroig and the Balearic media tycoon Pedro Serra”. But he indicates the involvement of other people: "the intellectual author of this criminal plot (...) who were it not for the bankruptcy of Spain would be committing another fraud in Can Mossenya with the "real estate development called Saint John Baptist" is no other than Maria Antonia Munar". In the end, Meizoso denounces that the criminal plot against him has been instigated by the Majorca Unionist gang. He denounced to the investigative magistrate of this case, Ana San Jose Cabero, the betrayal of local solicitors one after another, one of them for being member of the UM circle (Josep Rosselló Salamanca) and others because they sold themselves as experts to reform the Balearic Autonomic Charter (Ribas Garau and Pons Irazazábal). What if Meizoso is not a paranoiac and he is telling the truth?

Meizoso thinks that they want to remove him from Can Mossenya to make lucrative deals with the protected estate. It is true that everything looks murky and a bit confusing, and that is not Kodama who can do such deals. The property is a monument to the memory of Borges in Valldemossa, and to a friend of his young years Jacobo Sureda.

If the story is as Meizoso reports, he represents the original will of the previous owner of Can Mossenya, Pilar Montaner, who wanted to preserve the estate; and Kodama with a few Majorcans are seeking to make business. Kodama called Meizoso fraudster an "ordinary criminal" and told the press: “I know that he knew Borges, in the Seventies, in Paris. I know it because Borges himself warned me: `With this man none should share even a glass of water' ". Marieta, it impossible to believe you.

Meizoso has stated that he did not knew personally the man Borges.

Now that Kodama has provide new evidence of her voracity for money, in the case of the remake of "El Hacedor", it may make easier to place the label of swindler to the person who deserves it. Meizoso, of course, knows a lot about Borges. I have had the occasion to listen to him speak on the subject and his scholarship is beyond doubt. Kodama has shown abundantly that she does not. She acknowledge she had not read the book by Agustín Fernandez Mallo that she had managed to forbid. Equally she may not have read a line of the author she is exploiting to make a comfortable living. I do not know if Borges can be call her husband.

Meizoso has denounced that he has been persecuted because “the political authorities of Valldemossa wants to benefit from an illegal real estate development in the estate protected by the Foundation". He is victim of an European Arrest Warrant issued by an investigative magistrate from Majorca. Perhaps the worse idea by the plaintiff side was to seek an ally in Kodama.

Each one accuses each other of Mafia behaviour. Who are the Mafiosi? The real estate development plot by local politicians [in a National Heritage site protected by the Foundation chaired by Dr Meizoso]...? Meizoso? All? None?
...more information in our websites and by contacting us

British expats in Spain see their dreams crumble... by real estate corruption and a judicial system atomized in 17 autonomies which does not deliver justice

Over the past decade, Britons have flocked to Spain, following their dream of owning a place in the sun. But for some, the dream is crumbling.
Thousands of new homes in Andalucia have been declared illegal, because planning permission was granted at a local level, but not a regional one.
Many are now threatened with demolition.
watch Jon Cuthill report in the BBC.

Transcript of the video document:
Back in the South, visiting their family, Christine and John Ball are where they desperately want to be.

“Yeah, I was born in Worthing.”
“We’ve lived here practically all of our lives, haven’t we?”
“We were married here, brought up two sons here and then decided we’d retire in Spain.”

They sold up everything and headed overseas. But their Andalucían dreams turned into a nightmare when their new home was declared illegal and with the threat of demolition, they’re stranded.

“It’s like West Sussex County Council going into Worthing Town Council offices and say “that building or estate you have built there is illegal.”

Hundreds of families from the South are in a similar position. They are now fighting for compensation and the right to be allowed to live in their homes they’d originally been told were legal.

“We built the house then they tell us we’re wrong, they’re not wrong, we’re wrong”.
“I mean it’s all our lives money”.
“People back in the UK, they don’t realise the full scale of the problems. It is horrendous”.
“Even if we can find a solution, the length of time that it can take, especially those with court cases because the Spanish judicial system is very very slow, many people may well not see a solution in their lifetime here.”
“We shouldn’t be under this level of stress at our stage of life, through no fault of our own.” “People at our age start getting illnesses and when you’re under all this stress, it doesn’t help.”

But despite some people’s dreams being left in ruins, there are still no concrete promises to legalise their homes in Spain.

“The central government has no competence on this because the competences are in the powers on these issues have been devolved [Spain is atomized in 17 autonomies, 17 judiciary systems and so on] but the government is putting pressure on regional governments and on local authorities to have a look at those problems, to try to see how we can help.”

But for now, that’s little consolation for the families like the Balls, living with the constant fear their home will be demolished.

“I wish we’d never bought, if you want to come to Spain, rent.”
“Yes.”
“Don’t buy, for God’s sake, don’t buy”.

A court in South West France rejected on Wednesday (August 17) a request by Spain to hand over a high-level French ex-member of the Basque separatist movement ETA.
David Derguy, a former senior member of ETA, is accused by Spanish authorities of handling explosives, plotting bomb attacks and attempted assassination. Police were present in the court as Basque separatist supporters attended the hearing to protest against the possible hand-over.
The Spanish request comes under a new European Arrest Warrant, as Spanish authorities say they have found Derguy's finger prints on a letter bomb which was defused by Basque police in 1994. Daniel Derguy was arrested earlier this month but liberated on bail. He has already spent twelve years in prison in France for previous convictions and spent four years underground before being arrested in 1996. He has admitted being a member of ETA and says that while he does not take pride for his previous acts, he does not regret them and sees being an ETA militant as being part of his Basque duty. "I admit I was a member of ETA, I never denied it, and I did a lot of time in prison for it. I often say it, I don't claim any glory or pride but have no regrets about my past either. I just feel I did my duty as a Basque citizen, that's for sure," Derguy said after the court decision.
Derguy has said the Spanish request is a conspiracy, his lawyer, Yolanda Molina, said said it was a politically motivated and legally ill-founded. "The verdict is judicially fair and politically correct. What has been scandalous and not legally acceptable is the hand-over petition for Daniel Derguy to the Spanish authorities, it has been a political decision, only political, without any judicial basis."
Derguy is believed to have been captured by the ETA leader Henri Parot and became the spokesman for ETA prisoners' group in France. ETA, which has killed more than 850 people in half a century of struggle for an independent Basque state in northern Spain and south-western France, has been weakened by a string of arrests and discoveries of arms caches in Spain, France and Portugal.
The separatists declared a permanent cease-fire on January 10, which was rejected by the Spanish government as insufficient because it did not come with full disarmament.

MEPs criticise 'disproportionate' use of European arrest warrants.
UKIP MEP Gerard Batten asked a more serious question, inquiring whether "the case against Mr Julian Assange demonstrates the possible abuse of the EAW for political purposes"?
-and if can be use for extradition on the request of a mere Plaintiff - like in the malicious case brought by the Majorca mafia against Dr Meizoso

In April, the EU justice commissioner, Viviane Reding, warned that crossborder pursuits of bicycle thieves, piglet rustlers and those accused of trivial offences was damaging the authority of the European arrest warrant (EAW).
This week it was the turn of MEPs to voice their alarm – or appreciation – of the accelerated system of extradition that is meant to speed up the wheels of justice across the EU. Inevitably, questions about Julian Assange's fate resurfaced.
The EU Commission has tried to sugar the pill, promising legislation to ensure that no one facing criminal charges in any member country will be denied access to a lawyer. "The law would require every person facing extradition under Europe's fast-track extradition regime – the EAW – to be guaranteed access to a lawyer in both countries, to ensure protection of their fundamental rights," a soothing statement from Brussels declared.
...Improved access to lawyers has been welcomed by Jago Russell, chief executive of Fair Trials International. He said: "It is a shocking fact that, even within Europe, people are still being denied private access to a lawyer at crucial points in their case. This law will be an important step in the right direction, towards a Europe where countries can work together to tackle serious crime, safe in the knowledge that basic defence rights will be respected."
There have been calls for the introduction of a threshold below which extradition would not be permitted for minor allegations. Poland, in particular, has become notorious among EU states for the large quantity of its warrants.
EAWs have been sought for such offences as bicycle theft, possession of 0.45 grams of cannabis, removing car tyres and stealing piglets. More than 2,400 requests were received by the UK from Poland last year.
The EAWwas introduced in January 2004 to help speed extraditions between EU states. Among those resisting removal from the UK is Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, who is facing allegations of rape and sexual assault in Sweden.

...more in The Guardian and in the websites of Mr Gerard Batten MEP and the UK Independence Party

"The first request of civilization ... is that of justice."
Sigmund Freud

"Given the grave human consequences of extradition, the current blind faith approach is not acceptable."
Jago Russell, chairman of Fair Trials International

“Felix left a man here in jail, and when I went to Jerusalem, the chief priests and the Jewish leaders came and asked me to find him [saint Paul] guilty. I told them that it isn't the Roman custom to hand a man over to people who are bringing charges against him. He must first have the chance to meet them face to face and to defend himself against their charges.”
Acts 25, 15-16 (The Bible)

Because de European Arrest Warrant does not allow evidence to be considered, the judge approves Assange extradition of WikiLeaks founder to Sweden, where he faces sex crime allegations.

Julian Assange will today learn if he is to be extradited to Sweden to face rape and sexual assault allegations. The WikiLeaks founder's legal team has said it is already preparing an appeal in anticipation of the judge's decision going against him.
Mr Assange will learn his fate shortly after 10am today at Belmarsh Magistrates' Court when Chief Magistrate Howard Riddle delivers his judgment. Mark Stephens, Mr Assange's solicitor, said last night that his team was already preparing for the worst. "Both sides, the prosecution and the defence, have told the judge that they are going to appeal if they lose, so we are already working on that principle," he said.
Mr Stephens's comments came after a barrister with specialist knowledge of extradition law said it was "very likely" that the senior district judge will order Mr Assange's extradition. Julian Knowles, a barrister from Matrix, the same chambers as Clare Montgomery, who is prosecuting on behalf of the Swedish authorities in the Assange hearing, told BBC Radio 4's Law in Action: "From what I have read and heard about the Assange extradition hearing, it is very likely that the Swedish prosecutor will prevail and extradition will be ordered."
...more in The Guardian - Al Jazeera - The Independent - Publico - The Telegraph

Read also:
full judgment clicking here.
Police hit by flood of EU arrest warrants as officers process 20 times the number of foreign extradition requests as they make:
Police in Britain are being forced to arrest more criminals on behalf of other EU countries than any other nation.
Under the hugely controversial European Arrest Warrant, officers had to chase down 4,100 people accused of committing even very minor crimes last year.
That is 20 times the number of extradition requests made by the British authorities. The next country in the list was Spain, with 1,629.
Read more in the Daily Mail
Julian Assange denounces the injust European arrest warrant system

European Arrest Warrant extradition victim Flemming - TV interview

IF YOU CARE FOR JUSTICE & DEMOCRACY, PLEASE INFORM YOURSELF AND YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS

The fast track European Arrest Warrant of 2003 is a new 'Operation Condor', more insidious that the one of dictator Pinochet: both were produced out of the same fascist doctrine as the infamous “CIA Rendition Flights” to deprive innocent citizens who may fall victim of a malicious allegation of our fundamental rights.

Fair Trials International (www.fairtrials.net) and Liberty (www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/index.php) have documented an ever growing number of abuses committed by the antidemocratic doctrine applied to the EAW: that strong relations among EU members states supersedes the protection of the fundamental rights of citizens, suppressing thus the most important obligation of any Democratic State.

Fairness and justice and the fundamental right to be presumed innocent have been since 2003, time and time again, sacrificed to the EU states collaboration with the USA in the holy crusade against “terrorist” and “organised crime”. Like in the case of the invasion of Iraq or of Gaza, numberless innocent civilians are sacrificed to an ever growing corruption, deals behind the scenes, making a farce of democracy by the duplicity of our politicians and the hand-ties situation of the British judges who had to bow to any “judicial authority” of another EU state, even when a British judge is aware that an EAW is abusive.

EU countries with judicial systems shaped by dictatorships have been the main abusers of the EAW, the East EU countries as well as Spain, Portugal and Greece, where nepotism and corruption continues to reign. Now we see Sweden, which has cooperated in the “Renditions flights of the CIA”, also abusing the EAW to silence WikiLeaks and his founder Julian Assange, and the UK cooperating in sending to prison a mere defendant who had to be presumed innocent, not to mention of such a ludicrous allegations as “consensual sex turned rape”. Is this the XXI century? What was left of Fair Britain?

Instead of being the European Union the opportunity to bring Justice and Democracy to most EU countries that have been under dictatorships or suffered institutional corruption and nepotism, it has been the other way round: the EAW corporatist doctrine is the tool to knock down Fairness where it was before, by any “judicial authority” of another country acting unlawfully. Why us, the people, would keep paying the high bills of bureaucrats who work against us all, innocent citizens, who legislate against Justice and against Democracy? How could we support Human Rights in China, Russia, Iran, North Korea or Burma when our institutions give bad example? Humankind has only one home, what we let happen in a corner of Earth will affect us all. An injustice done to a human being casts an immense shadow on our humanity, as Sophocles and Euripides had shown.

It is time for journalists who want to dignify their profession to inform the European citizens of this new Plan Condor that is the actual EAW legislation.

Like Mr Julian Assange and many others, I am a victim of an abusive EAW issued on a private complaint instigated by Majorca Mafia wanting to grab the land of a national heritage site protected by the public interest Foundation I chair. I can provide detail information on my landmark case, which is opening the gates to extradition of innocent defendants on any single private complaint, with a corollary of human and civil rights violations that can make your life a hell like in a new “Guantanamo camp”.

Please for the sake your own human rights, for the sake of Fairness and Democracy, do care to learn about the unfairness of the EAW, and help to take to account the political leader who failed us all, take action before it is too late for any one you care for.

I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks.

The Editor
info@habeas-corpus.net

The European Arrest Warrant versus Democracy & Justice in the European Union

The EAW is a product of the "fight against terrorism" promote by the junta Bush Jr., Blair and Aznar. The doctrine of application is that the collaboration between members states supersedes their democratic duty of protecting the fundamental rights of their citizens. It is a similar fascist doctrine to that of president Truman in his "fight against communist terrorism" which has produced the infamous Plan Condor of dictator Pinochet and the Hispano American dictatorship and more recently the "rendition flights of the CIA" and the EAW.

Watch a brief outline on the unfairness of the actual European Arrest Warrant by Lord Dartmouth, MEP and Mr Gerard Batten, MEP (both of UK Independence Party) against the hypocrisy of the Liberal Democrats MEPs - Mr Graham Watson, MEP is the Godfather of the EAW- who support the fascist doctrine implementing the EAW and promoted by the junta Bush Jr, Blair and Aznar; which is making many hundreds of victims every year because of wide abuse of the European Arrest Warrant

Read transcript of Lord Dartmouth MEP 'J'accuse' on the unfair European Arrest Warrant by clicking here

British citizens and residents in the UK can be extradited to other European Union countries with no safeguards against injustice, something amply illustrated by the case of Andrew Symeou a nineteen-year-old London man whose fundamental rights have been violated by institutional corruption in Greece.


European Arrest Warrant - gross miscarriage of justice in itself - Gerard Batten MEP (UKIP)


European Arrest Warrant: Gerard Batten (UKIP) vs Baroness Ludford (Lib Dems)


The European arrest warrant and victim Enrico Mariotti explained by Mr Gerard Batten, MEP


Why the EU is an economic and democratic disaster. Interview to Mr Gerard Batten, MEP (UK Independence Party).


Join our campaign to repeal European Arrest Warrant as it is a facist instrument similar to Pinochet´s Plan Condor or the "Rendition flights of the CIA"
Listen to Lord Dartmouth, MEP (UK Independence Party) versus Mrs Carmen Romero López, MEP (PSOE - Spain)


The immediate suspension of the European arrest warrant by Lord Dartmouth, MEP

...more in The Guardian - The Independent - Le Monde
And in the website of the UK Independence Party / Number 10 - HM Government

Also visit the website JUSTICE FOR SYMEOU / Fair Trials International / join in Facebook: Justice for Andrew Symenou!
Read also:
A mockery of extradition
A Critical Assessment of the European Arrest Warrant

Stephen Hoffman: The Sinister World of the European Arrest Warrant
[Stephen Hoffman is Parliamentary Intern at The Freedom Association.]
During the previous Labour Government’s period in power, we had the twin horrors of ancient British liberties being torn up in the name of counter-terrorism and further transfers of power to the EU. This both hit UK taxpayers in the pocket and undermined national sovereignty. These horrors combined to create one of the most sinister pieces of legislation. Its name is the European Arrest Warrant (EAW).
...One case, which demonstrates the human costs of the European Arrest Warrant, is that of Andrew Symeou, who was extradited to Greece on charges of murder. This was despite the fact that there was little evidence to back the charges and important evidence on a CCTV camera, clearing Andrew, mysteriously went missing. There is also evidence that torture was used to extract confessions from informants. This was just the start of a terrible journey for him. He has been held for over a year awaiting trial. Most of this time has been spent in Korydallos prison, which is notorious for human rights abuse.
The Home Office is currently reviewing all extradition legislation. As part of this review, The Freedom Association has submitted a report detailing the ways in which the EAW infringes on the rights and freedoms of British citizens. Our submission highlights that the EAW undermines habeas corpus, a fundamental element of British justice. We would like to see the review recommend wide-ranging reforms which address the issues we have highlighted in our submission. If the review does not do this, the Coalition Government’s commitment to civil liberties will be seen to be entirely hollow.
...read the full article clicking here
European arrest warrants - Extraditions Process Abuses Suspects

The European Arrest Warrant and the modern Anti-Dreyfusards

The leader of the corrupt catalanist Majorca Unionist party, Mrs Munar...and the false widow Miss Kodama...use a judicial institution of Franco's dictatorship to impulse a criminal plot against a foundation of the Friends of Borges, as they want to grab the national heritage land to make money with an illegal real estate development

Como la catalanista y corrupta Munar no pudo controlar los Amigos de Borges para sus fines fascistas de mantenerse en el poder y continuar a delinquir con el bien público, hizo un pacto con su tocaya María Kodama para atacar la Fundación Internacional Can Mossenya - Amigos de J L Borges y lucrar con su predio histórico donde su grupo y el PP controlan el ayuntamiento. Para lograrlo sedujeron a la vicepresidenta de la Fundación, la Srta Pilar Montaner, de 90 años y la utilizaron como un caballo de Troya, para presentar en su nombre presentaron una querella maliciosa prestando al fundador de los Amigos de Borges de tener la misma intención que ellos: de enriquecerce -en el futuro- con la imposible venta del predio histórico protegido precisamente por la Fundación sin fines de lucro y de interés público con el protectorado del Ministerio de Cultura ... Ellos podrán enriquecerse si la corrupta justicia española condenara al presidente de la Fundación (Dr Meizoso) invocando la doctrina fascista de la junta Bush, Aznar y Blair de "ataque preventivo", a pesar que el Dr Meizoso ha sacrificado sus esfuerzos para proteger ese predio Cartujo... Las malhechoras Marías, Kodama y Munar, asociadas a otros poderes de facto de España utilizan para lograr su criminal objetivo un instancia judicial antidemocrática - juzgado de instrucción- heradada del siglo XIX y renforzada durante la dictadura Franquista como explica en las dos entrevistas que publicamos en esta nota el propio Ministro de Justicia, Don Francisco Caamaño ...

TV interview of 25th March 2010 to Spanish Justice Secretary, explaining the dire need of democratic reform to the administration of Justice and the abolition of the antidemocratic Investigative Magistrates

Read the full transcript in Spanish with significant passages translated into English clicking here

TV interview of 7th April 2010 to Spanish Justice Secretary, explaining the dire need of democratic reform to the administration of Justice and the abolition of the antidemocratic Investigative Magistrates

Read the full transcript in Spanish with significant passages translated into English clicking here

Leer también el artículo:
"El poder judicial es heredero del franquismo"

..."Yo lo que quiero es vivir tranquila", confesó Maria Antonia Munar a los suyos tras el 27-M, envuelta en el último traje de Escada, con el último bolso de Louis Vouitton debajo del brazo y repleta de diamantes y perlas australianas. Y eso sólo se lo podía garantizar un partido. Aquel que tenía la Fiscalía bajo su control. Entregó todo y se refugió en el aparente remanso de paz del Parlamento balear como segunda autoridad de la comunidad autónoma, conformándose con migajas de poder en las instituciones, sacrificando a su propio partido Unió Mallorquina (UM) y entregando Baleares al PSOE.
Pero el sosiego duró poco. Hasta que EL MUNDO reveló que su cúpula había cobrado comisiones del 15% por recalificar el mejor polígono industrial de Palma. Con un interminable reguero de documentos, transferencias y facturas falsas. En total, 50 millones de euros. La perezosa Fiscalía miró para otro lado durante un año entero hasta que se vio obligada a hacer algo cuando la marea de pruebas se colaba ya en sus despachos en forma de hojas de periódico. Y decidió registrar, casi como un mero trámite, un flamante chalé recién construido en uno de los acantilados de la Bahía de Palma. En aquella vivienda, una funcionaria de la Seguridad Social, que había hecho de testaferro de los líderes de UM para camuflar el cobro del botín, se empeñaba, durante el otoño de 2008, en esconder debajo de su ordenador, un fajo de papeles. Los nervios le jugaron una mala pasada y despertó la curiosidad de los inspectores de Hacienda que husmeaban en los alrededores. En aquellos documentos figuraba una productora audiovisual, Video-U. Y en ella, un pariente directo de Munar. Un ingeniero jubilado, sin ingresos oficiales ni patrimonio conocido, que se había encontrado, de golpe, con que el Consell de Mallorca que había gobernado su prima, le había dado cinco millones de euros públicos. Pero la Fiscalía, ni con esas. Se limitó a llamar a declarar al afortunado Víctor García, que había amanecido multimillonario. Le hizo cuatro preguntas de rigor, y él, abrumado por la nube de flashes y la insistencia de un juez que no daba crédito, se derrumbó. "Sí, soy un testaferro, y si usted quiere, yo las acciones se las regalo ahora mismo", le espetó al magistrado, que no pudo aguantar la risa.
Pero ni con esas Víctor García fue detenido ni el fiscal pidió para él medida cautelar alguna. Se marchó a su casa, como si nada, a disfrutar de su éxito empresarial, mientras el Ministerio Público garantizaba como podía la tranquilidad familiar. "¿Y ahora qué digo?", le preguntó a Munar. "Pues que eres el testaferro de Miquel Nadal -su delfín en el partido-". Y lo dijo, disparando el volumen de las carcajadas y provocando que Nadal destapara la caja de los truenos contra ella y provocara su dimisión. "Compramos la empresa con el dinero en efectivo que me dio Munar en el coche oficial", confesó contra su mentora. Pero ella cogió aire, presionó para acabar con el jefe de aquellos inspectores que habían metido la nariz donde no debían, que fue trasladado a Zaragoza en julio, y cuando se jactaba de que haber provocado la destitución de Raúl Burillo, y de que el Ministerio Público la trataría bien, el mismo juez que tuvo la oportunidad de quedarse la productora, heredar parte del imperio familiar y "vivir tranquilo", ha resultado ser honrado y ha dejado que sea un tribunal el que dirima la herencia.
Lea también:
"Amnistía Internacional denuncia el retroceso de España en la lucha contra la impunidad"

Misuse of the European Arrest Warrant

The Guardian, Thursday 16 December 2010
Julian Assange may ultimately succeed in his bail application, but the threat of extradition to Sweden will still hang over him (The Julian Assange case: a mockery of extradition?, 14 December). The public interest in Assange's case is understandable, but his case illustrates a wider, less publicised problem. Last year alone, Europe's fast-track extradition system was used to extradite nearly 700 people from the UK. Our work at Fair Trials International leaves us in no doubt that this system, designed to deliver justice, is in fact causing many serious cases of injustice.
A central concern in the Assange case is that Sweden seems not even to have laid charges. The European arrest warrant should, by law, be used only to prosecute or to enforce a sentence. Serious though the allegations may be, there is no basis to extradite Mr Assange, unless for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution. We have seen many cases of overseas prosecutors reaching for the quick-fire, tick-box EAW, rather than using other legitimate means of investigating alleged crimes. Michael Turner and Andrew Symeou are just two of those we have helped, and who experienced horrendous periods in detention after being surrendered, before even being questioned by police.
In such cases as these, less drastic tools should be used. Sweden should ask the UK to assist with its investigations, starting by questioning Assange. The EAW, used properly, is a key weapon in the fight against serious cross-border crime. It should not, however, be the measure of first resort.
Catherine Heard
Head of policy, Fair Trials International
Read also:
The European arrest warrant is being used to have thousands of people flown out to face charges that wouldn't stick in the UK
Extradition agreement under review as Theresa May launches inquiry
European arrest warrant in spotlight
Extradition treaty review will take a year:
The review, conducted by a panel of experts selected by the Home Office, will examine whether judges should be given powers to bar extradition and deal with some cases in British courts. Existing legislation allows the US and European Union countries to have British citizens arrested and sent for trial abroad without presenting the level of evidence that would be needed for a prosecution in the UK.
The panel will examine whether the Extradition Act and European Arrest Warrant are being used to unfairly pursue Britons. It follows the case of Gary McKinnon, a Scot who faces decades in a US jail for computer hacking crimes allegedly committed at his north London home. There has also been alarm at the use of European warrants to send people to countries with legal systems less robust than the UK's, and where they can face years locked up on remand.
Last night, the former home secretary David Blunkett, who signed the Extradition Act and has admitted he may have "given too much away" to the Americans, said that sensible discussions with Britain's extradition partners could resolve "any irritants quite speedily".
But he said Ms May's announcement of the scope of the review appeared "to kick these issues into the long grass" because the panel will not report until the end of next summer.
Shami Chakrabarti, of the civil rights group Liberty, also raised concerns about the time the review will take, saying: "A number of hard cases could be more urgently addressed by activating a 'forum' provision that has sat dormant on the statute book for four years."
By activating these provisions now, "judges would have the discretion to protect people who should most obviously be dealt with at home from being shunted off to Europe, the US or anywhere else", she added.

SWEDEN versus ASSANGE