The network of lawyers in conflicting roles in Browder, Assange and US government cases raises questions about Julian Assange’s defense.
By Lucy Komisar
November 8, 2019
A US government lawyer in the Assange extradition case just wrote a London Times oped promoting the Browder Magnitsky hoax. Ben Brandon is one of five lawyers in a London network whose spokes link to convicted tax fraudster William Browder, the U.S. government, and to both sides of the extradition case against whistleblower publisher Julian Assange.
Here is how the British legal system works. Lawyers are either solicitors who work with clients or barristers who go to court in cases assigned by the solicitors. To share costs, barristers operate in chambers, which provide office space, including conference rooms and dining halls, clerks who receive and assign cases from solicitors, and other support staff. London has 210 chambers. There are not “partners” sharing profits, but members operate fraternally with each other.
Browder is key in the U.S. demonization of Russia. Assange has exposed U.S. war crimes. For lawyers associated in the British legal system to take both sides on that conflict would appear to be an egregious conflict of interest. But it fits with the U.S.-UK support of the Browder-Magnitsky hoax and their cooperation in the attack on Assange.
The law firm and chambers involved in the Browder-Assange stories are Mishcon de Reya, Matrix Chambers and Doughty Street Chambers.
Ben Brandon of Mishcon de Reya and Alex Bailin of Matrix Chambers co-authored an opinion article in The Times of London October 24, 2019 in which they repeated William Browder’s fabrications about the death of his accountant Sergei Magnitsky. The article aimed to promote the Magnitsky Act which builds a political wall against Russia. It is based on the fake claim that Magnitsky, the accountant who handled Browder’s tax evasion in Russia, was really a lawyer who exposed a government scam.
Except that is not true, there is no evidence for it, and the lies are documented here. But the Act has prevented the Russians from collecting about $100 million Browder owes in back taxes and illicit stock buys.
Brandon’s and Bailin’s connections are notable. Law firms, at least in the U.S., tend to stake out their commitments. Lawyers who represent unions do not represent companies fighting unions. It appears to be different in Britain, where legal chambers . . . READ MORE AT OFF-GUARDIAN>>
According to Facebook’s recently-updated policy on “violence and incitement”, death threats and incitement of violence are banned across the platform, unless your death threat is aimed at someone the social media company has labeled a “dangerous individual”. As Facebook stated on May 2, 2019, their list of “dangerous individuals” includes InfoWars host Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, conservative activist Laura Loomer, Louis Farrakhan, and Milo Yiannopoulos. Facebook’s encouragement of its users to murder Loomer and other so called “dangerous individuals” was posted on the Facebook community standards page the same day Loomer filed a $3 BILLION lawsuit against Facebook for defamation. It’s time for President Trump and Congress to act on big tech censorship and hold the tech tyrants accountable.
Donetsk People’s Republic Prime Minister Alexander Zakharchenko, one of the greatest of world leaders, was assassinated today, August 31, 2018, no doubt by Ukrainian saboteurs. He gave his life willingly for the freedom of his country. Let us know he has not died in vain.
For those who mourn the death of DPR President Alexander Zakharchenko, there is some consolation to be found in the comment section at The Saker.
Full Report at NEWS FROM NOVOROSSIYA
Quemado Institute editor Karl Pomeroy received a legal threat today in response to a comment he posted on the Russia Insider website about the rise of the R********d banking family. The comment did not mention race, but was of historical content. The threatener accused Karl of “spreading Nazi propaganda,” then repeated the full text of the German Criminal Code Section 130, which outlaws inciting “hatred against a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origins,” which Karl’s comment did not do. A similar law, it was claimed, is now in force in 11 other European countries and carries a penalty of up to five years. The wording of the law is so vague, it could be applied to any criticism of those in power. If a political analyst can accidentally “violate” this totalitarian decree, there is no freedom of speech or press in Europe.