if you're going to front a bunch of cash for someones bail and that someone bolts the money is gone.

Maybe these idiots will remember that next time.

they probably wouldn't be going to court to try to get it returned to them.

It's great publicity. It just makes GB look more like thugs.

Sure they loose the money, but the judge just placed himself into the hands of public opinion.

It was a plan, no doubt, and it probably worked. They got their moneys worth.

Last edited Tue Sep 4, 2012, 02:04 PM - Edit history (1)

She is a descendant and heir to the Marquess of Londonderry's fortune. I don't think she's hurting for cash.

short of cash! Doesn't make it right though!

The more uproar this creates the better and I mean the Assange plight not lost securities.

And his word proved to be worthless.

whose word is worthless. That he would allow people who believed in him to lose the cash they defended him with shows just how low a person he is.

If he had one iota of self respect he would cease peddling conspiracy theories and face up to the charges.

If Julian had an iota of self-respect he'd allow himself to be blackbagged and enjoy the cell next to Bradley Manning. Listen to 'agnostic sherbet', Julian!

Trollery at it's lowest.

And I'd suppose you're also loudly demanding that the members of Pussy Riot that fled from Russia face up to their charges. Why, of course they'd get a fair trial and not get railroaded into prison!

(1) Pussy Riot is not evading criminal arrest by Swedish police for a sex crime, they are wanted for a political prosecution in Russia.
(2) Assange has not been accused of a political crime in Russia, the U.S., or anywhere else, he is being accused of a sex crime in Sweden.

So there is no relationship between the two cases.

(3) I oppose his extradition to the U.S., but since the U.S. has never sought to extradite him, something they could have done while he was going through the court system in England if there were charges, which there are not, the whole notion that he is going to be extradited is a conspiracy theory, and one that Assange is pushes for his own benefit.

That is the difference.

He is just another libertarian who thinks he is above the law and will manipulate people who think he is some kind of saint.

the people who put up that money didn't know he planned to flee? One of the biggest donors put him up in his house which was on record with the courts as his place of residence while on bail. Assange could not leave that residence except for weekly court appearances. He wasn't living there alone.

Your theory doesn't hold water.

retired Professor Tricia David, Nobel prize-winning biologist Sir John Sulston, who helped unravel the human genome, former Sunday Times journalist Philip Knightley, Lady Caroline Evans, wife of former Labour minister Lord Evans, his personal friend Sarah Saunders, a catering manager, Frontline Club founder Captain Vaughan Smith, who provided his Norfolk country mansion as a bail address. They all offered £20,000 sureties.

Marchioness Tracy Worcester, 53, the model and actress turned environmental campaigner, offered £10,000 while his Wikileaks assistants Joseph Farrell and Sarah Harrison, both stumped up £5,000 in return for his freedom ...

At the beginning of the hearing, Judge Riddle said it found it 'absolutely striking' that none of the nine had attended court in person ...


Julian Assange's celebrity backers set to lose $540,000 bail money as he remains holed up in Ecuador Embassy
By Emily Allen
PUBLISHED: 07:12 EST, 4 September 2012 | UPDATED: 09:05 EST, 4 September 2012
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2198072/Julian-Assanges-high-profile-backers-set-lose-340-000-bail-money-remains-holed-Ecuador-Embassy.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Here's Wikileaks' Joseph Farrell, right front center in glasses and coat

h

Here's Joseph P Farrell of Giza Death Star

Is the US to explicitly state they will not pursue charges against him.

Our government is responsible for all of this.

given to the court before Assange was bailed – and believed to have been paid into by high-profile backers, including Jemima Khan, film directors Ken Loach and Michael Moore, and millionaire publisher Felix Dennis – had been forfeited at an earlier hearing in July ...

Adjourning the hearing until 3 October, Riddle said those guaranteeing bail had a month to persuade Assange to surrender to police if they wanted their money back ...

Julian Assange backers could lose £340,000 in bail money
WikiLeaks founder's supporters have already forfeited £200,000 and risk £140,000 more if Assange refuses to surrender to police
Shiv Malik and agencies
Tuesday 4 September 2012 13.24 EDT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/sep/04/julian-assange-backers-lose-bail?newsfeed=true

And even if the bail is changed, the people who put up the original bail cannot be forced to pay more than they willingly put up, can they?

If so, how? And if so, what's to stop the justice systems from taking advantage of such a policy?

And how much was the freaking bail, anyway? One post above refers to 540,000 pounds which is something like $1,250,000. That ridiculous.

have not always been reported consistently

The total seems to be something in the range of 250000 pounds, and recent stories suggest the deposits have been forfeited already

So the current court activity seems to be the beginning of the process for collecting the sureties

Julian Assange backers could lose £340,000 in bail money
... Assange's backers could lose £340,000 ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/sep/04/julian-assange-backers-lose-bail?newsfeed=true

Supporters of WikiLeaks' Assange lose $320K in bail money
... Total, the backers stand to lose $539,444 ...
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/05/13668940-supporters-of-wikileaks-assange-lose-320k-in-bail-money?lite

I'd guessing the $539K figure comes from converting £320K to $, then treating the result as £ and converting it to $ again