“Mobsters” are whatever the law says they are, but in some countries they are, in fact, simply the nation’s wealthiest people, who can and do pay whomever they have to pay (“consigliere”) in order to get
the law to mean what they want it to mean. In other words: sometimes a mobster is anyone who no matter how harmful to
society, can become and remain enormously wealthy and never go to prison for it, nor be executed for it. They are above
the law, and are therefore the real rulers in the dictatorship where they happen to live. They engage in the
most-premeditated of crimes, from which the largest numbers of people become (basically) murdered and injured, but can
and do buy impunity, so that prisons contain only the relatively low-level (and usually poor) crooks, and also innocent
people who simply couldn’t afford a decent lawyer. This is ‘justice’, in ‘democracies’. It’s not justice in any
democracy.
The actual laws in any country are whatever the nation’s judicial branch say they are. The judicial branch is constantly
making the decisions as to what the written laws mean, and those decisions are always what the nation’s actual laws are (the “law” as it is enforced), regardless of what that nation’s legislative branch wants and of what its executive
branch (President or Prime Minister) wants. Whereas in a democracy, the law comes from a Constitution that was written
by representatives of the nation’s residents at the time of its creation, and contains a provision for itself to be
amended by current representatives of that nation’s current residents, and the judges always honestly interpret that or
else are executed for treason if they don’t, the laws in U.S., UK, and Netherlands mean whatever the courts in those
countries say that the Constitution, and the laws that the legislature has passed in accord with the Constitution, say
that they mean, and there is no accountability for treasonous judges — judges who dishonestly interpret that
Constitution and those laws. In a democracy, dishonest interpretation of the Constitution, and of those laws, is
publicly recognized to be warfare against the will of that nation’s residents, and therefore to be treason. Any land
where there exists no such accountability for judges is a dictatorship by judges, and the Government there represents
only whomever its judges represent — enemies of the people. Traitors actually do rule there.
Cases will be described here which show how such dictatorships function, in U.S., UK, and Netherlands. All of these are
typical cases, cases that are fairly representative of their respective nations, but differing only in that they have
been exhaustively reported on, even if not reported in mainstream media (which usually are owned or controlled by such
gangsters). Each case will be summarized (mainly by quoting accurate summaries, or entire news-reports, that have
already been published), and the links will be to online sites, and to books, in which the details are discussed.
——THE SACKLER CASE
Two reviews at Amazon, regarding Patrick Radden Keefe’s 13 April 2021 Empire of Pain: The Secret History of the Sackler Dynasty:
-
5.0 out of 5 stars Devastating
Reviewed in the United States on April 15, 2021
Verified Purchase
This is the story of 4 generations of one American family, the Sackler. It's not meant to document the Opiod Epidemic
that has cost our country 500 thousand lives and 2 trillion dollars. As such, it reads like a novel in some places,
especially the opening chapter, and a morality play througout.
Though I am grateful to Keefe for writing this book and attempting to hold this "pure evil" family to account I am
devastated that they clearly seem to have gotten away with it all. Sackler Family sold 40 billion dollars worth of
highly addictive poison, cleared about 12 billion of that in cash, funneled billions offshore stripping Purdue Pharma of
most of its meaningful assets, then declared bankruptcy leaving less than a billion or so to cover damages from Maine to
California.
I share the author's hope that this book will inspire others to read the archive and tell this story someday. We can't
bring back the lives of so many who were so cruelly taken. We can't hold those to account who profited so cruelly from
the lies they told us so expertly. But we can still tell this story in the hope that the next Sackler family won't be
able to get away with all of it - next time. And we need to tell this story for the half a million Americans who seemed
to have paid for the Sackler Family Trust Funds with their lives.
-
2.0 out of 5 stars Where was the editor?
Reviewed in the United States on May 6, 2021
The tale of the Sacklers and the opioid crisis is amazing, but this book is a mess. Where was the editor? The entire
first part of the book is entirely unnecessary to the story of Oxycontin and the genesis of the opioid crisis. The
author probably wanted to include it because he spent so much time researching the Sackler family, but any good editor
would have cut most of it out. And the rest of the book is filled with minor characters that serve only to show the
author’s bias. Like why are we told all about an artist who is a recovered heroin addict, who unwisely takes a
prescription opioid, gets re-addicted, and then spends years protesting the Sacklers at museums and art galleries? The
author also naively criticizes the techniques that Purdue Pharma used to extend the life of their patent, not realizing
that such “evergreening” is standard practice in the industry. The Sacklers were a part of this crisis, but they didn’t
cause it alone, and much more time should have been spent on the FDA, AMA, physicians, and pharmacists who also
participated. Worst of all is that the book was published before the story was finished, without any resolution to the
Purdue Pharma bankruptcy or lawsuits.
-
In March 2021, Purdue Pharma filed a restructuring plan to dissolve itself and establish a new company dedicated to
programs designed to combat the opioid crisis, according to court documents filed on 15 March 2021.[46] As part of the
proposed plan, the Sackler family would agree to pay an additional US$4.2 billion over the next nine years to resolve
various civil claims.[46] However, this would amount to a "legal firewall" that would protect the Sackler family, such
as making them immune from criminal prosecutions. It was thus opposed by 24 state attorneys general as well as the
attorney general for Washington, D.C. "If the Sacklers are allowed to use bankruptcy to escape the consequences of their
actions," said the state AGs who called the proposal legally unprecedented, "it would be a roadmap for other powerful
bad actors."[47]
-
The Moon of Alabama blogger published, on 14 June 2021, a news-report which proved that there has been zero basic change
after the Sacklers got away with mass-murder in the Purdue Pharma and Oxycontin narcotics scandal. Headlining “Corruption Is Profitable. But Does It Have To Be This Profitable?”, he opened:
Aduhlem, a drug that is supposed to slow Alzheimer's effects, had failed to show efficacy in two trials. It showed some
reduction of plaques in the brain which may or may not be significant.
Ten of the eleven advisors of the Federal Drug Administration voted "no" when asked if there was enough evidence that
the drug is useful. One voted "uncertain". Last week the FDA approved the drug and claimed that the plaques reduction
effect is somewhat meaningful.
Three of the advisors resigned.
The cost per patient per year for the drug will be some $56,000. There are some 6 million people in the U.S. with
Alzheimer's. Medicare and Medicaid, which will have to pay for the drug because it is FDA approved, will have to bear
the costs. The company which makes the drug, Biogen, will gain ginormous profits from it. As will physicians who
prescribe the drug, administer the infusions and bill 6% of the drug's price for it.
The above is a portrait of a deeply corrupt system in which all incentives are set in the wrong direction.
Now, corruption in national medical systems is not unusual and can be found all over the world. But what I find
astonishing with the U.S. system is how little money companies like Biogen actually have to pay to get deals done that
will make them billions.
The man who pushed for the FDA approval was no other than President Joe Biden, … the largest recipient of campaign funds
by a large margin from Biogen and affiliated parties … $76,241. …
As I had headlined, on 26 January 2020 (at the start of Biden’s Presidency), “Joe Biden Is as Corrupt as They Come”.
——THE DONZIGER CASE
“The Ongoing Persecution of Steven Donziger: The environmentalist lawyer marks 600 days under house arrest — with no end in sight.”
The Nation, 30 March 2021, by James North
On March 28, the environmentalist lawyer Steven Donziger spent his 600th day under house arrest in his New York City
apartment – and Martin Garbus, the legendary attorney who is part of his defense team, warns that he could end up being
confined for an astonishing five years. Donziger says that Chevron, with the help of two federal judges, is persecuting
him, because in 2013 he helped win a $9.5 billion case in Ecuador against the oil giant for contaminating a stretch of the Amazon rain forest.
On March 29, the US Appeals Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit turned down Donziger's motion to be released on bail
while awaiting trial for contempt. Donziger's attorneys argued before the court earlier in the month that he was not a
flight risk, but the three-judge panel rejected their plea, keeping Donziger at home, monitored by an ankle bracelet.
Donziger's contempt trial before federal judge Loretta Preska is due to start on May 10. …
Donziger's contempt case is an irregular proceeding in which a private law firm with ties to Chevron is prosecuting him
after the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York refused to take up the case. There is no jury.
Judge Preska alone will decide his fate – continuing the unjust, decade-long pattern in which Donziger has never gotten the chance to face a jury of his peers.
In 2011, the Ecuadorean courts awarded 30,000 plaintiffs, mostly farmers and Indigenous people, billions of dollars to
clean up the polluted soil and to improve the region's rudimentary health facilities. But Chevron has refused to pay,
claiming that Donziger committed fraud to win the case. Meanwhile, his clients in eastern Ecuador live on poisoned land
and struggle to find safe water. Five peer-reviewed scientific studies show an increased risk of cancer and other threats to health in the area. (Chevron funded its own peer-reviewed study,
which claims there is no such increased risk.)…
The mainstream US press inexplicably continues to ignore Chevron's campaign against Donziger. The news blackout by the
New York Times and others contrasts with their detailed reports back from 2011 to 2014, when the oil giant prosecuted
Donziger and a few of his Ecuadorean allies for racketeering, using the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, originally designed to pursue the mafia. Chevron, which had participated in every phase of the legal process in
Ecuador up to and including an appeal to that nation's highest court, brought an entirely new case in a New York federal
district court to try to discredit Donziger and his clients. Chevron's star witness was an ex-judge from Ecuador,
Alberto Guerra, who testified that Donziger and others had bribed him to ghostwrite the decision. Guerra's evidence was
highly questionable: Chevron admitted in court that it had paid to move him and his family to the United States and
rehearsed his testimony before the trial 53 times.
A Chevron legal maneuver had deprived Donziger of the right to a jury, so it was Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, a corporate
lawyer-turned-federal judge, who in 2014 decided to accept Guerra's testimony, disregard contrary statements from other
witnesses, and find Donziger and his Ecuadorean codefendants guilty. …
Hundreds of students from more than 50 US law schools say they will boycott recruitment visits from Seward & Kissel, the law firm that is prosecuting Donziger for contempt.
On 26 April 2021, the appeals court, the Second Circuit, upheld the trial judge’s conviction of Donziger. On that same day, Donziger’s lawyer submitted to the trial judge the “Defendant’s Motion for a Jury Trial”, arguing that “Absent voluntary waiver of the jury right, the Constitution does not trust judges to make determinations
of criminal guilt. … Mr. Donziger is entitled to a jury in his upcoming criminal contempt trial by statute and under the
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” The judge declined that motion; and the ‘trial’, on the case “U.S. v. Donziger, 19-cr-00561”, started on 10 May 2021, which is the latest available news on this case. Perhaps the winner in the case will be
whichever side can continue the longest to pay lawyers — which, of course, would mean that Chevron will win, and it also
means that Ecuador won’t receive from Chevron what Ecuador had won in its trial case against Chevron.
On 2 May 2021, the Wall Street Journal headlined “Litigation Without End: Chevron Battles On in 28-year-old Ecuador Lawsuit”, and reported that
A decade earlier, an Ecuadorean court had blamed Chevron for oil pollution and told it to pay $9.5 billion in damages,
one of the largest-ever penalties of its kind.
Chevron had since proved the verdict fraudulent, it told the U.S. Trade Representative. But Ecuador refused to render it
unenforceable despite an order to do that from an international arbitration tribunal. … Chevron … still hasn’t paid a
cent of the Ecuadorean judgment, and says it won’t stop legally battling until it can ensure that it never has to.
“We’re going to fight this until hell freezes over, and then we’ll fight it on the ice,” a former Chevron general
counsel, Charles James, said before his retirement in 2010, a remark that became a watchword at the company.
——THE ASSANGE CASE
This afternoon Julian’s Spanish lawyer, Baltasar Garzon, left court to return to Madrid. On the way out he naturally
stopped to shake hands with his client, proffering his fingers through the narrow slit in the bulletproof glass cage.
Assange half stood to take his lawyer’s hand. The two security guards in the cage with Assange immediately sprang up,
putting hands on Julian and forcing him to sit down, preventing the handshake. That was not by any means the worst thing
today, but it is a striking image of the senseless brute force continually used against a man accused of publishing
documents. That a man cannot even shake his lawyer’s hand goodbye is against the entire spirit in which the members of
the legal system like to pretend the law is practised. I offer that startling moment as encapsulating yesterday’s events
in court.Day 2 proceedings had started with a statement from Edward Fitzgerald, Assange’s QC, that shook us rudely into
life. He stated that yesterday, on the first day of trial, Julian had twice been stripped naked and searched, eleven
times been handcuffed, and five times been locked up in different holding cells. On top of this, all of his court
documents had been taken from him by the prison authorities, including privileged communications between his lawyers and
himself, and he had been left with no ability to prepare to participate in today’s proceedings.
Magistrate Baraitser looked at Fitzgerald and stated, in a voice laced with disdain, that he had raised such matters
before and she had always replied that she had no jurisdiction over the prison estate. He should take it up with the
prison authorities. Fitzgerald remained on his feet, which drew a very definite scowl from Baraitser, and replied that
of course they would do that again, but this repeated behaviour by the prison authorities threatened the ability of the
defence to prepare. He added that regardless of jurisdiction, in his experience it was common practice for magistrates
and judges to pass on comments and requests to the prison service where the conduct of the trial was affected, and that
jails normally listened to magistrates sympathetically.
Baraitser flat-out denied any knowledge of such a practice, and stated that Fitzgerald should present her with written
arguments setting out the case law on jurisdiction over prison conditions. This was too much even for prosecution
counsel James Lewis, who stood up to say the prosecution would also want Assange to have a fair hearing, and that he
could confirm that what the defence were suggesting was normal practice. Even then, Baraitser still refused to intervene
with the prison. She stated that if the prison conditions were so bad as to reach the very high bar of making a fair
hearing impossible, the defence should bring a motion to dismiss the charges on those grounds. Otherwise they should
drop it.
Both prosecution and defence seemed surprised by Baraitser’s claim that she had not heard of what they both referred to
as common practice. Lewis may have been genuinely concerned at the shocking description of Assange’s prison treatment
yesterday; or he may have just had warning klaxons going off in his head screaming “mistrial”. But the net result is
Baraitser will attempt to do nothing to prevent Julian’s physical and mental abuse in jail nor to try to give him the
ability to participate in his defence. The only realistic explanation that occurs to me is that Baraitser has been
warned off, because this continual mistreatment and confiscation of documents is on senior government authority.
A last small incident for me to recount: having queued again from the early hours, I was at the final queue before the
entrance to the public gallery, when the name was called out of Kristin Hrnafsson, editor of Wikileaks, with whom I was
talking at the time. Kristin identified himself, and was told by the court official he was barred from the public
gallery.
Now I was with Kristin throughout the entire proceedings the previous day, and he had done absolutely nothing amiss – he
is rather a quiet gentleman. When he was called for, it was by name and by job description – they were specifically
banning the editor of Wikileaks from the trial. Kristin asked why and was told it was a decision of the Court.
At this stage John Shipton, Julian’s father, announced that in this case the family members would all leave too, and
they did so, walking out of the building. They and others then started tweeting the news of the family walkout. This
appeared to cause some consternation among court officials, and fifteen minutes later Kristin was re-admitted. We still
have no idea what lay behind this. Later in the day journalists were being briefed by officials it was simply over
queue-jumping, but that seems improbable as he was removed by staff who called him by name and title, rather than had
spotted him as a queue-jumper.
None of the above goes to the official matter of the case. All of the above tells you more about the draconian nature of
the political show-trial which is taking place than does the charade being enacted in the body of the court. There were
moments today when I got drawn in to the court process and achieved the suspension of disbelief you might do in theatre,
and began thinking “Wow, this case is going well for Assange”. Then an event such as those recounted above kicks in, a
coldness grips your heart, and you recall there is no jury here to be convinced. I simply do not believe that anything
said or proved in the courtroom can have an impact on the final verdict of this court.
So to the actual proceedings in the case.
For the defence, Mark Summers [actually, Mark Sommers] QC stated that the USA charges were entirely dependent on three factual accusations of Assange behaviour:
1) Assange helped Manning to decode a hash key to access classified material.
Summers stated this was a provably false allegation from the evidence of the Manning court-martial.
2) Assange solicited the material from Manning
Summers stated this was provably wrong from information available to the public
3) Assange knowingly put lives at risk
Summers stated this was provably wrong both from publicly available information and from specific involvement of the US
government.
In summary, Summers stated the US government knew that the allegations being made were false as to fact, and they were
demonstrably made in bad faith. This was therefore an abuse of process which should lead to dismissal of the extradition
request. He described the above three counts as “rubbish, rubbish and rubbish”.
Summers then walked through the facts of the case. He said the charges from the USA divide the materials leaked by
Manning to Wikileaks into three categories:
a) Diplomatic Cables
b) Guantanamo detainee assessment briefs
c) Iraq War rules of engagement
d) Afghan and Iraqi war logs
Summers then methodically went through a), b), c) and d) relating each in turn to alleged behaviours 1), 2) and 3),
making twelve counts of explanation and exposition in all. This comprehensive account took some four hours and I shall
not attempt to capture it here. I will rather give highlights, but will relate occasionally to the alleged behaviour
number and/or the alleged materials letter. I hope you follow that – it took me some time to do so!
On 1) Summers at great length demonstrated conclusively that Manning had access to each material a) b) c) d) provided to
Wikileaks without needing any code from Assange, and had that access before ever contacting Assange. Nor had Manning
needed a code to conceal her identity as the prosecution alleged – the database for intelligence analysts Manning could
access – as could thousands of others – did not require a username or password to access it from a work military
computer. Summers quoted testimony of several officers from Manning’s court-martial to confirm this. Nor would breaking
the systems admin code on the system give Manning access to any additional classified databases. Summers quoted evidence
from the Manning court-martial, where this had been accepted, that the reason Manning wanted to get in to systems admin
was to allow soldiers to put their video-games and movies on their government laptops, which in fact happened
frequently.
Magistrate Baraitser twice made major interruptions. She observed that if Chelsea Manning did not know she could not be
traced as the user who downloaded the databases, she might have sought Assange’s assistance to crack a code to conceal
her identity from ignorance she did not need to do that, and to assist would still be an offence by Assange.
Summers pointed out that Manning knew that she did not need a username and password, because she actually accessed all
the materials without one. Baraitser replied that this did not constitute proof she knew she could not be traced.
Summers said in logic it made no sense to argue that she was seeking a code to conceal her user ID and password, where
there was no user ID and password. Baraitser replied again he could not prove that. At this point Summers became
somewhat testy and short with Baraitser, and took her through the court martial evidence again. Of which more…
Baraitser also made the point that even if Assange were helping Manning to crack an admin code, even if it did not
enable Manning to access any more databases, that still was unauthorised use and would constitute the crime of aiding
and abetting computer misuse, even if for an innocent purpose.
After a brief break, Baraitser came back with a real zinger. She told Summers that he had presented the findings of the
US court martial of Chelsea Manning as fact. But she did not agree that her court had to treat evidence at a US court
martial, even agreed or uncontested evidence or prosecution evidence, as fact. Summers replied that agreed evidence or
prosecution evidence at the US court martial clearly was agreed by the US government as fact, and what was at issue at
the moment was whether the US government was charging contrary to the facts it knew. Baraitser said she would return to
her point once witnesses were heard.
Baraitser was making no attempt to conceal a hostility to the defence argument, and seemed irritated they had the
temerity to make it. This burst out when discussing c), the Iraq war rules of engagement. Summers argued that these had
not been solicited from Manning, but had rather been provided by Manning in an accompanying file along with the
Collateral Murder video that showed the murder of Reuters journalists and children. Manning’s purpose, as she stated at
her court martial, was to show that the Collateral Murder actions breached the rules of engagement, even though the
Department of Defense claimed otherwise. Summers stated that by not including this context, the US extradition request
was deliberately misleading as it did not even mention the Collateral Murder video at all.
At this point Baraitser could not conceal her contempt. Try to imagine Lady Bracknell saying “A Handbag” or “the
Brighton line”, or if your education didn’t run that way try to imagine Pritti Patel spotting a disabled immigrant. This
is a literal quote:
“Are you suggesting, Mr Summers, that the authorities, the Government, should have to provide context for its charges?”
An unfazed Summers replied in the affirmative and then went on to show where the Supreme Court had said so in other
extradition cases. Baraitser was showing utter confusion that anybody could claim a significant distinction between the
Government and God.
The bulk of Summers’ argument went to refuting behaviour 3), putting lives at risk. This was only claimed in relation to
materials a) and d). Summers described at great length the efforts of Wikileaks with media partners over more than a
year to set up a massive redaction campaign on the cables. He explained that the unredacted cables only became available
after Luke Harding and David Leigh of the Guardian published the password to the cache as the heading to Chapter XI of
their book Wikileaks, published in February 2011.
Nobody had put 2 and 2 together on this password until the German publication Die Freitag had done so and announced it
had the unredacted cables in August 2011. Summers then gave the most powerful arguments of the day.
The US government had been actively participating in the redaction exercise on the cables. They therefore knew the
allegations of reckless publication to be untrue.
Once Die Freitag announced they had the unredacted materials, Julian Assange and Sara Harrison instantly telephoned the
White House, State Department and US Embassy to warn them named sources may be put at risk. Summers read from the
transcripts of telephone conversations as Assange and Harrison attempted to convince US officials of the urgency of
enabling source protection procedures – and expressed their bafflement as officials stonewalled them. This evidence
utterly undermined the US government’s case and proved bad faith in omitting extremely relevant fact. It was a very
striking moment.
With relation to the same behaviour 3) on materials d), Summers showed that the Manning court martial had accepted these
materials contained no endangered source names, but showed that Wikileaks had activated a redaction exercise anyway as a
“belt and braces” approach.
There was much more from the defence. For the prosecution, James Lewis indicated he would reply in depth later in
proceedings, but wished to state that the prosecution does not accept the court martial evidence as fact, and
particularly does not accept any of the “self-serving” testimony of Chelsea Manning, whom he portrayed as a convicted
criminal falsely claiming noble motives. The prosecution generally rejected any notion that this court should consider
the truth or otherwise of any of the facts; those could only be decided at trial in the USA.
Then, to wrap up proceedings, Baraitser dropped a massive bombshell. She stated that although Article 4.1 of the US/UK
Extradition Treaty forbade political extraditions, this was only in the Treaty. That exemption does not appear in the UK
Extradition Act. On the face of it therefore political extradition is not illegal in the UK, as the Treaty has no legal
force on the Court. She invited the defence to address this argument in the morning.
It is now 06.35am and I am late to start queuing…
With grateful thanks to those who donated or subscribed to make this reporting possible.
This article is entirely free to reproduce and publish, including in translation, and I very much hope people will do so
actively. Truth shall set us free.
-
In yesterday’s proceedings in court, the prosecution adopted arguments so stark and apparently unreasonable I have been
fretting on how to write them up in a way that does not seem like caricature or unfair exaggeration on my part. What has
been happening in this court has long moved beyond caricature. All I can do is give you my personal assurance that what
I recount actually is what happened.
As usual, I shall deal with procedural matters and Julian’s treatment first, before getting in to a clear account of the
legal arguments made.
Vanessa Baraitser is under a clear instruction to mimic concern by asking, near the end of every session just before we
break anyway, if Julian is feeling well and whether he would like a break. She then routinely ignores his response.
Yesterday he replied at some length he could not hear properly in his glass box and could not communicate with his
lawyers (at some point yesterday they had started preventing him passing notes to his counsel, which I learn was the
background to the aggressive prevention of his shaking Garzon’s hand goodbye).
Baraitser insisted he might only be heard through his counsel, which given he was prevented from instructing them was a
bit rich. This being pointed out, we had a ten minute adjournment while Julian and his counsel were allowed to talk down
in the cells – presumably where they could be more conveniently bugged yet again.
On return, Edward Fitzgerald made a formal application for Julian to be allowed to sit beside his lawyers in the court.
Julian was “a gentle, intellectual man” and not a terrorist. Baraitser replied that releasing Assange from the dock into
the body of the court would mean he was released from custody. To achieve that would require an application for bail.
Again, the prosecution counsel James Lewis intervened on the side of the defence to try to make Julian’s treatment less
extreme. He was not, he suggested diffidently, quite sure that it was correct that it required bail for Julian to be in the body
of the court, or that being in the body of the court accompanied by security officers meant that a prisoner was no
longer in custody. Prisoners, even the most dangerous of terrorists, gave evidence from the witness box in the body of
the court nest to the lawyers and magistrate. In the High Court prisoners frequently sat with their lawyers in
extradition hearings, in extreme cases of violent criminals handcuffed to a security officer.
Baraitser replied that Assange might pose a danger to the public. It was a question of health and safety. How did
Fitzgerald and Lewis think that she had the ability to carry out the necessary risk assessment? It would have to be up
to Group 4 to decide if this was possible.
Yes, she really did say that. Group 4 would have to decide.
Baraitser started to throw out jargon like a Dalek when it spins out of control. “Risk assessment” and “health and
safety” featured a lot. She started to resemble something worse than a Dalek, a particularly stupid local government
officer of a very low grade. “No jurisdiction” – “Up to Group 4”. Recovering slightly, she stated firmly that delivery
to custody can only mean delivery to the dock of the court, nowhere else in the room. If the defence wanted him in the
courtroom where he could hear proceedings better, they could only apply for bail and his release from custody in
general. She then peered at both barristers in the hope this would have sat them down, but both were still on their
feet.
In his diffident manner (which I confess is growing on me) Lewis said “the prosecution is neutral on this request, of
course but, err, I really don’t think that’s right”. He looked at her like a kindly uncle whose favourite niece has just
started drinking tequila from the bottle at a family party.
Baraitser concluded the matter by stating that the Defence should submit written arguments by 10am tomorrow on this
point, and she would then hold a separate hearing into the question of Julian’s position in the court.
The day had begun with a very angry Magistrate Baraitser addressing the public gallery. Yesterday, she said, a photo had
been taken inside the courtroom. It was a criminal offence to take or attempt to take photographs inside the courtroom.
Vanessa Baraitser looked at this point very keen to lock someone up. She also seemed in her anger to be making the
unfounded assumption that whoever took the photo from the public gallery on Tuesday was still there on Wednesday; I
suspect not. Being angry at the public at random must be very stressful for her. I suspect she shouts a lot on trains.
Ms Baraitser is not fond of photography – she appears to be the only public figure in Western Europe with no photo on
the internet. Indeed the average proprietor of a rural car wash has left more evidence of their existence and life history on the
internet than Vanessa Baraitser. Which is no crime on her part, but I suspect the expunging is not achieved without
considerable effort. Somebody suggested to me she might be a hologram, but I think not. Holograms have more empathy.
I was amused by the criminal offence of attempting to take photos in the courtroom. How incompetent would you need to be to attempt to take a photo and fail to do so? And if no photo was taken, how do
they prove you were attempting to take one, as opposed to texting your mum? I suppose “attempting to take a photo” is a
crime that could catch somebody arriving with a large SLR, tripod and several mounted lighting boxes, but none of those
appeared to have made it into the public gallery.
Baraitser did not state whether it was a criminal offence to publish a photograph taken in a courtroom (or indeed to
attempt to publish a photograph taken in a courtroom). I suspect it is. Anyway Le Grand Soir has published a translation of my report yesterday, and there you can see a photo of Julian in his bulletproof glass anti-terrorist cage. Not, I
hasten to add, taken by me.
We now come to the consideration of yesterday’s legal arguments on the extradition request itself. Fortunately, these
are basically fairly simple to summarise, because although we had five hours of legal disquisition, it largely consisted
of both sides competing in citing scores of “authorities”, e.g. dead judges, to endorse their point of view, and thus repeating the same points continually with little value from exegesis of the innumerable quotes.
As prefigured yesterday by magistrate Baraitser, the prosecution is arguing that Article 4.1 of the UK/US extradition
treaty has no force in law.
The UK and US Governments say that the court enforces domestic law, not international law, and therefore the treaty has no standing. This argument has been made to the court in written form to which I do not have access. But
from discussion in court it was plain that the prosecution argue that the Extradition Act of 2003, under which the court
is operating, makes no exception for political offences. All previous Extradition Acts had excluded extradition for
political offences, so it must be the intention of the sovereign parliament that political offenders can now be
extradited.
Opening his argument, Edward Fitzgerald QC argued that the Extradition Act of 2003 alone is not enough to make an actual
extradition. The extradition requires two things in place; the general Extradition Act and the Extradition Treaty with
the country or countries concerned. “No Treaty, No Extradition” was an unbreakable rule. The Treaty was the very basis
of the request. So to say that the extradition was not governed by the terms of the very treaty under which it was made,
was to create a legal absurdity and thus an abuse of process. He cited examples of judgements made by the House of Lords
and Privy Council where treaty rights were deemed enforceable despite the lack of incorporation into domestic
legislation, particularly in order to stop people being extradited to potential execution from British colonies.
Fitzgerald pointed out that while the Extradition Act of 2003 did not contain a bar on extraditions for political
offences, it did not state there could not be such a bar in extradition treaties. And the extradition treaty of 2007 was
ratified after the 2003 extradition act.
At this stage Baraitser interrupted that it was plain the intention of parliament was that there could be extradition
for political offences. Otherwise they would not have removed the bar in previous legislation. Fitzgerald declined to
agree, saying the Act did not say extradition for political offences could not be banned by the treaty enabling
extradition.
Fitzgerald then continued to say that international jurisprudence had accepted for a century or more that you did not
extradite political offenders. No political extradition was in the European Convention on Extradition, the Model United
Nations Extradition Treaty and the Interpol Convention on Extradition. It was in every single one of the United States’
extradition treaties with other countries, and had been for over a century, at the insistence of the United States. For
both the UK and US Governments to say it did not apply was astonishing and would set a terrible precedent that would
endanger dissidents and potential political prisoners from China, Russia and regimes all over the world who had escaped
to third countries.
Fitzgerald stated that all major authorities agreed there were two types of political offence. The pure political
offence and the relative political offence. A “pure” political offence was defined as treason, espionage or sedition. A
“relative” political offence was an act which was normally criminal, like assault or vandalism, conducted with a
political motive. Every one of the charges against Assange was a “pure” political offence. All but one were espionage
charges, and the computer misuse charge had been compared by the prosecution to breach of the official secrets act to
meet the dual criminality test. The overriding accusation that Assange was seeking to harm the political and military
interests of the United States was in the very definition of a political offence in all the authorities.
In reply Lewis stated that a treaty could not be binding in English law unless specifically incorporated in English law
by Parliament. This was a necessary democratic defence. Treaties were made by the executive which could not make law.
This went to the sovereignty of Parliament. Lewis quoted many judgements stating that international treaties signed and
ratified by the UK could not be enforced in British courts. “It may come as a surprise to other countries that their
treaties with the British government can have no legal force” he joked.
Lewis said there was no abuse of process here and thus no rights were invoked under the European Convention. It was just
the normal operation of the law that the treaty provision on no extradition for political offences had no legal
standing.
Lewis said that the US government disputes that Assange’s offences are political. In the UK/Australia/US there was a
different definition of political offence to the rest of the world. We viewed the “pure” political offences of treason,
espionage and sedition as not political offences. Only “relative” political offences – ordinary crimes committed with a
political motive – were viewed as political offences in our tradition. In this tradition, the definition of “political”
was also limited to supporting a contending political party in a state. Lewis will continue with this argument tomorrow.
That concludes my account of proceedings. I have some important commentary to make on this and will try to do another
posting later today. Now rushing to court.
With grateful thanks to those who donated or subscribed to make this reporting possible.
This article is entirely free to reproduce and publish, including in translation, and I very much hope people will do so
actively. Truth shall set us free.
-
8 April 2020
Assange Extradition: The Deadly Magistrate
by Craig Murray Posted on April 11, 2020
Mark Sommers QC, the extremely erudite and bookish second counsel for Julian Assange in his extradition hearing,
trembled with anger in court. Magistrate Vanessa Baraitser had just made a ruling that the names of Julian Assange’s
partner and young children could be published, which she stated was in the interests of “open justice”. His partner had
submitted a letter in support of his Covid-19 related bail application (which Baraitser had summarily dismissed) to
state he had a family to live with in London. Baraitser said that it was therefore in the interests of open justice that
the family’s names be made public, and said that the defense had not convincingly shown this would cause any threat to
their security or well-being. It was at this point Sommers barely kept control. He leapt to his feet and gave notice of
an appeal to the High Court, asking for a 14 day stay. Baraitser granted four days, until 4 pm on Friday.
I am in lockdown in Edinburgh, but received three separate eye witness reports. They are unanimous that yet again
Baraitser entered the court carrying pre-written judgments before hearing oral argument; pre-written judgments she gave
no appearance of amending.
There have been two Covid-19 deaths in Belmarsh prison so far. For obvious reasons the disease is ripping through the
jail like wildfire. The Department of Justice is admitting to one death, and refuses to give statistics for the number
of cases. As even very sick prisoners are not being tested, the figures would arguably not mean much anyway. As the
court heard at the bail application, over 150 Belmarsh prison staff are off work self-isolating and the prison is
scarcely functioning. It is the most complete definition of lockdown.
The Prison Governors’ Association submitted to the House of Commons Justice Committee (which yesterday morning
considered prisoner releases in closed session) that 15,000 nonviolent prisoners need to be released to give the jails
any chance of managing Covid-19. The Department of Justice has suggested releasing 4,000 of whom just 2,000 have been
identified. As of a couple of days ago, only about 100 had actually been released.
The prisons are now practicing “cohorting” across the estate, although decisions currently lie with individual
governors. Prisoners who have a cough – any cough – are being put together in segregated blocks. The consequences of
this are of course potentially unthinkable. Julian has a cough and chronic lung condition for which he has been treated
for years – a fact which is not in dispute.
Yesterday Baraitser again followed her usual path of refusing every single defence motion, following pre-written rulings
(whether written or merely copied out by herself I know not), even when the prosecution did not object. You will recall
that at the first week of extradition hearing proper, she insisted that Julian be kept in a glass cage, although counsel
for the US government made no objection to his sitting in the body of the court, and she refused to intervene to stop
his strip searching, handcuffing and the removal of his court papers, even though the US government joined the defence in querying her claim she had no power to do this (for which she was later roundly rebuked by the International Bar Association).
Yesterday the US government did not object to a defense motion to postpone the resumption of the extradition hearing.
The defense put forward four grounds:
1) Julian is currently too ill to prepare his defense
2) Due to Covid-19 lockdown, access to his lawyers is virtually impossible
3) Vital defense witnesses, including from abroad, would not be able to be present to testify
4) Treatment for Julian’s mental health conditions had been stopped due to the Covid-19 situation.
Baraitser airily dismissed all these grounds – despite James Lewis QC saying the prosecution was neutral on the
postponement – and insisted that the May 18 date remains. She stated that he could be brought to the cells in
Westminster Magistrates Court for consultations with his lawyers. (Firstly, in practice that is not the case, and
secondly these holding cells have a constant throughput of prisoners which is very obviously undesirable with Covid-19).
It is worth noting that the prosecution stated that the US government’s own psychiatrist, appointed to do an assessment
of Julian, had been unable to access him in Belmarsh due to Covid-19 restrictions.
This is getting beyond me as it is getting beyond Mark Sommers and the defense team. Even before Covid-19 became such a
threat, I stated that I had been forced to the conclusion the British Government is seeking Assange’s death in jail. The
evidence for that is now overwhelming.
Here are three measures of hypocrisy.
Firstly, the UK insists on keeping this political prisoner – accused of nothing but publishing – in a Covid-19 infested
maximum security jail while the much-derided Iranian government lets Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe out and hopefully will
release her altogether.
Which is the inhumane regime?
Secondly, “open justice” allegedly justifies the release of the identities of Julian’s partner and kids, while the state
enforces the secrecy of Alex Salmond’s busted accusers, even though the court heard evidence that they specifically colluded to destroy him using, as a deliberate tool, the anonymity afforded to people making
sexual accusations.
Thirdly, nobody cultivates her own anonymity more than Vanessa Baraitser who has her existence carefully removed from
the internet almost entirely. Yet she seeks to destroy the peace and young lives of Julian’s family.
Keep fighting for Julian’s life and for freedom.
-
25 June 2020, Kevin Gosztola. (I requested permission to republish here his entire article, and received no reply; so,
since all of it is good, I republish all of it here.)
The United States government expanded their indictment against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to criminalize the
assistance WikiLeaks provided to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden when staff helped him leave Hong Kong.
Sarah Harrison, who was a section editor for WikiLeaks, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, a former spokesperson, and Jacob
Appelbaum, a digital activist who represented WikiLeaks at conferences, are targeted as “co-conspirators” in the [24
June 2020] indictment [PDF], though neither have been charged with offenses.
No charges were added, however, it significantly expands the conspiracy to commit computer intrusion charge and accuses
Assange of conspiring with “hackers” affiliated with “Anonymous,” “LulzSec,” “AntiSec,” and “Gnosis.”
The computer crime charge is not limited to March 2010 anymore. It covers conduct that allegedly occurred between 2009
and 2015.
Prosecutors rely heavily on statements and chat logs from Sigurdur “Siggi” Thordarson and Hector Xavier Monsegur
(“Sabu”), who were both FBI informants, in order to expand the scope of the prosecution.
In March, Judge Anthony Trenga dismissed the grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, that was investigating WikiLeaks. U.S.
Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning, who refused to testify before the grand jury, was released from jail after spending
about a year in confinement for “civil contempt.” She was still ordered to pay $256,000 in fines.
Activist Jeremy Hammond, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for his involvement in the hack against the
intelligence consulting firm Stratfor, refused to testify as well. Trenga ordered his release, and he was transferred
back into the custody of the Bureau of Prisons.
Prosecutors accuse Assange and other WikiLeaks staffers of engaging in “efforts to recruit system administrators” to
leak information to their media organization.
WikiLeaks Openly Displayed ‘Attempts To Assist Snowden In Evading Arrest’
“To encourage leakers and hackers to provide stolen materials to WikiLeaks in the future, Assange and others at
WikiLeaks openly displayed their attempts to assist Snowden in evading arrest,” the indictment declares.
It notes Harrison (“WLA-4”) traveled with Snowden to Moscow from Hong Kong, leaving out the part where the State
Department revoked his passport and trapped him in Russia.
During an interview for “Democracy Now!” in September 2016, Sarah Harrison said WikiLeaks understood Snowden was in a
“very complex legal and political situation” and needed “some people to assist with technical and operational security
expertise.”
“I went over there, as the person on the ground in Hong Kong, to help him, not only for him, himself, because he had
clearly done something so brave and deserved the protection, I felt, but also for the larger objective to try and show
that despite [President Barack] Obama’s war on whistleblowers, that actually there was another option.”
Harrison added, “At the time, the Obama administration was intent upon putting alleged source Chelsea Manning into
prison for decades—as she is now in prison for 35 years—and we really wanted to try and show the world that there are
people that will stand up, there are people that will help. And The Guardian, for example, did not give any additional
help to Edward Snowden as a source, as a person there, and we wanted to show there are publishers that will help in
these scenarios.”
Prosecutors note WikiLeaks booked Snowden on “flights to India through Beijing” and Iceland as examples of how Assange
engaged in an alleged conspiracy.
At the annual Chaos Computer Club conference in Germany on December 31, 2013, Assange, Appelbaum, and Harrison
participated in a panel discussion called, “Sysadmins of the World, Unite! A Call to Resistance.” (Assange appeared via
video.)
The indictment criminalizes Assange’s speech in support of Snowden and any future whistleblowers and twists his words
into a prime example of WikiLeak “encouraging” the “theft of information” from the U.S. government.
Prosecutors even omit particular words to make the message Assange shared seem more nefarious than an endorsement of
radical transparency.