The latest twist in his longstanding, ongoing litigation is a duplicitous knot for Julian Assange, after his legitimate grievances, worthy of being heard in court with the fullness of time for facts to mature were swiftly debunked by a feat of rancid rhetorics.
Behind the scenes, the universe may be conspiring to help Julian, and the shadowy forces feared to be behind the scenes by his contingent of supporters are not as sharp, haven't got the shop shut up so well as they affect. Much like terrorists their wanton force, violence, coercion is a signal they are drifting in to a setting sun with spectacles of violence to try and scare us in to thinking they're still at the helm.
To my mind the brilliant comedy of Arbuthnot's scandal is how she sews seeds of her own rebuttal, not because I am vindictive but because court has been vindictive to justice and it is rewarding to see them fail to carry their authority on logic. What could the error be? I might be to do with a fallacy in a context specific scenario.
1)Claims about sunlight and health based on counterfactual indicators I.e. "Health could be worse"
2)Counterfactual indicators are being discouraged for use in habeus corpus cases
In the last two terms the Supreme Court has made reasonable adjustments to accommodate for the inviolate nature of human rights, making a normative judgement they ought not to be violated by any reframing of fact or event that trivialises the liberties enshrined in habeus corpus statute.
If we are in cahoots with the US we might as well start doing it properly.