Of course, we thought the same thing in February, too. CNN reports that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange won’t be bundled onto a plane for Stockholm immediately.  Assange does have one more option left with the British Supreme Court, which might allow Assange one last appeal — as long as he can pay for it:

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange lost his battle against extradition Wednesday when Britain’s High Court ruled that he should be sent to Sweden to face questioning over allegations of sexual misconduct. …

In their ruling, the judges said that the European Arrest Warrant that triggered Assange’s arrest and subsequent proceedings by the Swedish authorities were “proportionate.”

Lawyers for the 40-year-old Australian are expected to seek permission to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land. The legal team must lodge an application within the next two weeks, and make a case that a “point of law of general importance” is at stake.

Swedish authorities have not charged Assange, but they want to question him over allegations of sexual molestation, unlawful coercion and rape made by two Swedish women following a trip to Stockholm in August 2010. Assange vehemently denies the charges.

Assange hasn’t lost his battle yet, not as long as he has an appeal remaining. He lost this round, certainly, and he’s likely to lose the battle.  If the Supreme Court sticks him with the bill for further appeals, he’s going to have to give up, as Wikileaks is out of cash and out of its cash-producing business these days.  I predicted earlier that the British courts would have little choice. The UK has an extradition agreement with Sweden, and as the High Court ruled today, the Swedish extradition request was valid.  British courts don’t have legal authority to approve or reject Swedish legal actions.

However, even though almost nine months have gone by since the last appeal got rejected, Sweden still has not actually filed any charges in this case.  The extradition request demands Assange for “questioning” in two allegations of sexual assault.  As I asked in February, why hasn’t Sweden simply conducted the “extended questioning” in the UK?  If they charge Assange with a crime, then extradition would be appropriate.  Considering the nuances of the accusation, that would be a reasonable approach, and yet Sweden doesn’t seem terribly interested in pursuing a less costly and less controversial approach.  It’s certainly curious, and it prompts questions over what the motivation might be in Sweden.