Author Topic: Sort of reply I had by "journalist" Smaurizi when I wrote her, commented  (Read 2420 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jujyjuji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Related links:

Emails sent to Stefania Maurizi #1

  Emails sent to Stefania Maurizi #2
 Emails sent to Stefania Maurizi #3

...I can't obviously post her own email, but as she has repeatedly commented what I have written to her in public, telling the emails were "accusations" coming from this forum, attempting to discredit this full site, I think it's time I comment what she wrote me after "Email 3".

Let's repeat in the months before I had been emailing to Stefania Maurizi for pro Assange and WikiLeaks support -may be I should post what I wrote her too, in the next days, so one has an idea of the fact I was a supporter- So the fact I was writing her big criticism of Julian Assange was really the 1st time.

The reaction I had after email 3 has been this one:

- She started the email telling she didn't belive it was my true identity; she told me she was calling me "Enrica" though it was surely a false identity.

In the previous months I had given data about who I was, for my own credibility and, in another email, she had replied me that if I did care about my privacy, I shouldn't have sent those data via email hinting the emails are monitored.

Being told after months that she STILL did not belive who I was sounded really absurd.

I haven't violated any law; I was posting cables on facebook cablegate that had already been leaked; I'm not a "leaks source"... Why should I hide?
And how can I be credible if I hide behind a fake identity to the eyes of another WL supporter? ...I use nicknames in public, but I had nothing to hide about my name to a journalist!

So... ok: the paranoia arrived to the point that she thought in all this time I had been lying to her.

Well, wrong. I didn't lie at all.

- She told me that having been working with WL for almost 4 years, she could know the truth like few and she could perfectly value she recived documents, together with other collegues that had been working with this source.

... ok nothing to say about that: normal.

- After she told me during these years she had been contacted by many people telling her the most strange stories on JA, that she had listened everybody without previously excluding anyone, because she's a journalist as I was saying...

... and till here all ok...

- And after she continued telling me in all these " incredible accusations" had been sent to her about Assange in 4 years had never have been proven to be hoaxes, often delusional ones. And the fact I was telling Julian Assange could have been tied to the Muslim brotherhood was "really big, if not insane".

Now, my comment is: I'm telling you this is a suspect, and I want to talk about it in private with another supporter, and you tell me you are going to listen to everyone, and your initial attitude is hinting my idea is INSANE without I have even had the opportunity of explaining better???

- She continued her very acid reply telling when JA hadrun his show "The World Tomorrow" on RT he had been accused of being a "useful idiot of the Kremlin", and when he published the Syria Files (that I was mentioning within the things making me suspicious) he had been accused him of being "a CIA experiment". Now I was mentioning the Muslim Brotherhood. And shr was only missing the UFOs' theory.

Point 1) Assange has in the last years Repeatedly tweeting PRO-Putin
Point 2) the UFOs and having connections with extreme right wing groups in the Middle East are totally another thing.

With a reaction like that, she basically STOPPED me from discussing whatever suspect with herself ...

Not only: she told me that if I had no evidence of the fact some WL donations had been directed to "else" than WL, that was DEFAMATION!

She threatened me, actually.
Because Defamation in Italy is punishable by law.
Telling her via email I had a suspect was defamation according to herself.

- But about the REAL defamation @wikileaks had just done by spreading to 2mln followers a tweet that accused the forum of adding malware on purpose, she only commented that she could not either confirm nor deny the names in my emails I was identifying as members of WikiLeaks, because she regulates herself by not identifying the sources.

(!!!) You start the email pretending I'm a "fake identity" and pretending evidence where I say I'm just discussing about the potential problem, and when I offer you Evidence that @wikileaks has deliberatedly lied to 2mln followers to discredit a site, you Avoid the Evidence?
Because you don't identify the twitter sources?

Lol. There was nothing to be identified: @wikileaks had on purpose retweeted defamation after Assange a month before had tried to push the forum to illegally send him all the emails of the members and, when we refused to respect the law, he revenged that way.
It was Very Evident.

Not only: after "FoWL", WLpress and cabledrummer even accused this site of being emails harvester, while Assange had tried to harvest the emails instead.

So... The fact S. Maurizi still now in 2015 keeps mentioning only what she finds laughable, and totally wants to -on purpose- ignore what is very discutible in the WL organization and Assange's behaviours, only makes me think she's in denial.

As a confirmation I've sent her an Email 4 with Evidence we had been talking with WL staffers and nobody had replied or apologized for the "error":

 Emails sent to Stefania Maurizi #4

And she, the day after, 15 jan 2013, despite I had sent her another 5th email where I told her I was going to drop the cases I could not prove, anyway commented in public how absurd were my "accusations" this way, totally ignoring the part of things I had proven to be true about WL wrongdoings:

Quote
@SMaurizi
(1/3)Smear campaign against #Assange and @wikileaks ENDLESS I was contacted by a guy sustaining Julian is somehow linked 2Muslim Brotherhood
https://twitter.com/SMaurizi/status/290951707184226305

@SMaurizi
(2/3) After #Assange sold broadcasting rights to @RT_com he was accused of being a Kremlin's puppet.
https://twitter.com/SMaurizi/status/290952353765531648

@SMaurizi
(3/3) After @wikileaks released #SyriaFiles Pravda accused #Assange of being a CIA experiment. What next? #Assange an alien?
https://twitter.com/SMaurizi/status/290952680740904962

I sent her a 6th email telling: hey, you have tweeted my hypothesis! I only had told you it was a concern and not to post it!
And @hazelpress (aka WLForum defamator @StjarnaFranfall) even liked all her tweets:
 Guess who liked the acid tw by #SMaurizi referred to my emails? --> #hazelpress ...let me think the impression "Stjarna" was informed of everything (opinion).

Not happy, she even now in 2015, keeps commenting on my old emails to try to hurt the forum, as the forum normally does what it's meant to do: standing for press freedom:

Quote
@SMaurizi
(1/2) [email protected]brunoballardini @l_napoleoni @gadlernertweet @wireditalia mi spiace,ma wikileaks-forum NON solo ha nulla a che vedere con #Wikileaks
https://twitter.com/SMaurizi/status/572395996644319232

[Translation: (1/2) @brunoballardini @l_napoleoni @gadlernertweet @wireditalia I'm sorry but wikileaks-forum NOT only has nothing to do with #Wikileaks ]

@SMaurizi
(2/2) [email protected]brunoballardini @l_napoleoni @gadlernertweet @wireditalia ma proprio da "wikileaks-forum" partite accuse molto dubbie a #Wikileaks
https://twitter.com/SMaurizi/status/572396453689233409

[(2/2) [email protected]brunoballardini @l_napoleoni @gadlernertweet @wireditalia but exactly from "wikileaks-forum" very questionable accusations to #Wikileaks have been launched]

@SMaurizi
[email protected]brunoballardini @l_napoleoni @gadlernertweet @wireditalia sedicenti attivisti "wikileaks-forum"mi inviarono accuse deliranti #Wikileaks
https://twitter.com/SMaurizi/status/572397484355534848

[[email protected]brunoballardini @l_napoleoni @gadlernertweet @wireditalia self-styled "wikileaks-forum" activists sent me delirious accusations #Wikileaks]

@SMaurizi
[email protected]brunoballardini @l_napoleoni @gadlernertweet @wireditalia si',sedicenti attivisti quel forum mi inviarono accuse folli contro #WikiLeaks
https://twitter.com/SMaurizi/status/572398348608675840

[[email protected]brunoballardini @l_napoleoni @gadlernertweet @wireditalia yes, self-styled activists of that forum had sent me foolish accusations against #Wikileaks]

... Well the "self-styled activist" here had enough of herself using what I wrote her confidentially to try to boycott this whole site, when the site is doing nothing but supporting press freedom by translations and, yes, also criticizing Assange's PRO-extreme right wing tweets like these supporting ISIS accounts: Some @wikileaks tweets that look "indulgent" vs ISIS

There have been reports also supposing Julian Assange has had connections to the Muslim brotherhood:

Muslim Brotherhood paid for Julian Assange's Bodyguards at an Event in 2010 in Switzerland. Chat with a WL related person: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1s1oi7v

FTR #736 Taqqiya Sunrise: More about the Muslim Brotherhood and the Piggy-Back Coup in the Middle East - Article mentioning the WL connections in the Egyptian Arab Spring:
http://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr-736-taqqiya-sunrise-more-about-the-muslim-brotherhood-and-the-piggy-back-coup-in-the-middle-east/

So, despite I wasn't there, there is enough evidence to suggest having At Least suspects, isn't anything so stupid or insane, if one has eyes to see.
And this has nothing to do with the validity of the leaks that, when used to uncover wrongdoings, may be really helpful.

If inside the WL community even having a legitimated suspect, gets immediately banned as "delusional, insane, defamatory", I, sorry for using strong words, think this sort of repulsion against the "heretics" is starting to really look more like a blind cult.

I thought WikiLeaks was about journalism, freedom of thought and press freedom. But I sadly notice that even freedom of thought has been "banned".

Offline jujyjuji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
About the forum's suspects and doubts on the donations, now interesting chats with WL shop and WL staffers have been shared:

Donations from WikiLeaks Merchandise Shop bypass Wau Holland

There actually is a part of the money that bypasses the Wau Holland: the ones coming from WL shop.

For more info read also: Assange Withheld Info from Kristinn Hrafnsson Regarding Wikileaks Donations

In 2012 WL told the forum they needed to rise 1 million (they tweeted it too after):

Assange - "WL needs to raise €1M immediately" (even if it means losing members 

And WL in that moment started directly using the WL Facebook page, that before had been run and maintained by volunteers of this forum, and before even by the so infamous ex WL staffer Siggi.
WL didn't care about WL Facebook at all before.
But they wanted it only to rise money, no matter if they were going to loose supporters because of the continuous "donate" posts.

Quote
(6:14:24 PM) [email protected]: did S explain about donation requests?
(6:14:48 PM) WikiLeaksForum: yes
(6:14:50 PM) [email protected]: I have it from S that JA wants me to push the donation requests a lot
(6:14:55 PM) [email protected]: even at the risk of alienating some people
(6:15:03 PM) WikiLeaksForum: yes...but we shouldnt overdo it

Source: http://www.wikileaks-forum.com/-wikileaks-related-news/23/assange-wl-needs-to-raise-eur1m-immediately-even-if-it-means-losing-members/31044/#.VP3Nxfi3k6E.twitter

... There should be another post of a chat with WL staffers in the forum where they clearly say they "care" about the WL facebook page only because it can help rising money.

So, at the light of these recently (2014) published info, the suspects on what the money were for, look definitively something more concrete than a simple "delusional accusation".

And let's end the comments with this:

The Forum refused to provide WikiLeaks with the email address of 15k members

This is what happened if I well remember nearly a month before @wikileaks published that absurd "Stjarna Franfall malware" tweet.

"Not happy" with having spread falsities on twitter after we refused to violate the law by giving Assange all the emails of the members (I suppose they wanted to spam them asking for donations!), after some "presumed" WL supporters have wrongly accused the forum of being a "emails harvesters":

Warning: wlfriends.org sending forum members abusive e mails

... When one mentions the mechanism of projection... The "emails harvesters" was @wikileaks actually.
Had we done what they asked for -illegally- they wouldn't have attempted to censor this site.

They are still doing so: the last @wikileaks epic rant pretends this site's founder is the FBI (!).

For more info you can also read:
Julian Assange's paranoid schizophrenic obsession with the #Wikileaks Forum
Assange Attempts to CENSOR the #Wikileaks Forum for Allowing Critics a Voice
Assange Attacks Forum (again) "WHAT DOES TRUTH REVEAL ?,,, IT REVEALS FEAR !"
Assange's attempted smear of the Wikileaks Forum backfires again

All of this has been done AFTER this forum disagreed with WL, never before.
Despite it was known Siggi had left WL since 2011, WL directly cooperated with this forum till half 2012 (I was helping translating their site FoWL so I can confirm this); this happened despite it was known by WL staffers Siggi had after cooperated with the FBI.
But nothing happened to the forum till it, after several very unclear situations, criticized WL and/or asked questions.

... And as you ask for transparency, then you "must be the FBI", it seems, according to WL.

Definitively, there was and there is something wrong in how the WL org is working inside.
Total lack of transparency.
And as one volunteer or staffers rises questions he/she gets attacked by many WL associates or even staffers, attempting to take down his/her reputation or credibility.

Is this "Normal" for an organization that should be promoting press freedom and transparency?
Or are they valid values only when they don't touch the dark sides of Assange and his staffers?