DOCSLIB.ORG

USA -V- Julian Assange Judgment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
USA -V- Julian Assange Judgment JUDICIARY OF ENGLAND AND WALES District Judge (Magistrates’ Court) Vanessa Baraitser In the Westminster Magistrates’ Court Between: THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Requesting State -v- JULIAN PAUL ASSANGE Requested Person INDEX Page A. Introduction 2 a. The Request 2 b. Procedural History (US) 3 c. Procedural History (UK) 4 B. The Conduct 5 a. Second Superseding Indictment 5 b. Alleged Conduct 9 c. The Evidence 15 C. Issues Raised 15 D. The US-UK Treaty 16 E. Initial Stages of the Extradition Hearing 25 a. Section 78(2) 25 b. Section 78(4) 26 I. Section 78(4)(a) 26 II. Section 78(4)(b) 26 i. Section 137(3)(a): The Conduct 27 ii. Section 137(3)(b): Dual Criminality 27 1 The first strand (count 2) 33 The second strand (counts 3-14,1,18) and Article 10 34 The third strand (counts 15-17, 1) and Article 10 43 The right to truth/ Necessity 50 iii. Section 137(3)(c): maximum sentence requirement 53 F. Bars to Extradition 53 a. Section 81 (Extraneous Considerations) 53 I. Section 81(a) 55 II. Section 81(b) 69 b. Section 82 (Passage of Time) 71 G. Human Rights 76 a. Article 6 84 b. Article 7 82 c. Article 10 88 H. Health – Section 91 92 a. Prison Conditions 93 I. Pre-Trial 93 II. Post-Trial 98 b. Psychiatric Evidence 101 I. The defence medical evidence 101 II. The US medical evidence 105 III. Findings on the medical evidence 108 c. The Turner Criteria 111 I. A substantial risk 112 II. The capacity to resist the impulse to suicide 114 III. The risk he will succeed whatever steps are taken 115 I. Abuse of Process 120 a. Zagrewski Abuse 121 b. The new allegations (excising the Request) 132 J. Orders 134 A. INTRODUCTION The Request 2 1. This is a request made by the Government of the United States of America (“the US”) for the extradition of Julian Paul Assange. The US is represented by James Lewis QC, Claire Dobbin and Joel Smith. Mr. Assange is represented by Edward Fitzgerald QC, Mark Summers QC, Ben Cooper QC and Florence Iveson. 2. The United States of America (“the USA”) is a Category 2 territory for the purposes of the Extradition Act 2003 (“the EA 2003”). The request is therefore governed by the provisions of Part 2 of the EA 2003, the Extradition Act 2003 (Commencement and Savings) Order 2003 and the Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003. 3. On 29 July 2020 the Secretary of State issued a certificate under s.70(8) of the EA 2003 certifying that the request for extradition is valid and that it has been made in the approved way. Procedural History (US) 4. On 21 December 2017, a federal magistrate judge, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, issued a criminal complaint against Mr. Assange, charging him with conspiracy contrary to Title 18 of the US Code (the “U.S.C.”), section 371. The offence alleged to be the object of the conspiracy was computer intrusion (Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1030). 5. On 6 March 2018, a federal grand jury returned an indictment against Mr. Assange charging him with conspiracy (contrary to Title 18, U.S.C. section 371) to commit unlawful computer intrusion (contrary to section 1030(a)(1) and (2)). The US submitted via diplomatic channels a provisional arrest request in relation to this charge. 6. On 23 May 2019, a federal grand jury returned a superseding indictment containing 18 counts alleging further offences related to the obtaining, receiving and disclosure of “National Defense Information” (contrary to the provisions of Title 18, U.S.C. sections 793(g), 793(b), 793 (c), 793 (d) and 793 (e)). On the same date, a warrant was issued by the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, for the arrest of Mr. Assange for the offences specified in the superseding warrant. On 6 June 2019 the US submitted via diplomatic channels a request for Mr. Assange’s extradition based on the charges in 3 the superseding indictment. The was supported by an affidavit of Kellen Dwyer dated 4 June 2019. 7. On 24 June 2020 a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia returned a second superseding indictment charging Mr. Assange with 18 counts summarised below. On 20 July 2020 a request for extradition based upon the second superseding indictment was issued. It is supported by five declarations of Gordon Kromberg dated 17 January 2020 (“Kromberg first declaration”), 19 February 2020 (“supplemental Kromberg declaration”), 12 March 2020 (“second supplemental Kromberg declaration”), and 24 March 2020 (“third supplemental Kromberg declaration”) and 17 July 2020 (“fourth supplemental Kromberg declaration”). On 7 September 2020 the initial extradition request was discharged and the extradition proceedings were opened. Procedural History (UK) Chronology 8. The history of these extradition proceedings is as follows: a. On 2 December 2010, a European Arrest Warrant (“an EAW”) was issued by a Swedish judicial authority, in respect of Mr. Assange, for offences of unlawful coercion, rape and molestation; b. On 7 December 2010, Mr. Assange was arrested in this jurisdiction pursuant to the EAW; c. On 14 December 2010, he was granted conditional bail; d. On 24 February 2011, following contested proceedings, extradition to Sweden was ordered. He was released on bail with a duty to surrender to this court on 29 June 2012. He failed to return to court and a warrant was issued by Westminster Magistrates’ Court for his arrest; e. On 30 May 2012, the Supreme Court rejected his appeal against the extradition order; f. On 14 June 2012, his application for leave to reopen the appeal was refused; g. On 19 June 2012, he entered the Embassy of Ecuador in London, where he remained for the next seven years; h. On 12 August 2015, three of the allegations in Sweden became time barred, the allegation of rape remained outstanding; i. On 19 May 2017, the Swedish prosecutor announced that she was discontinuing the prosecution against Mr. Assange; 4 j. On 21 December 2017, Mr. Assange was granted diplomatic status by the Ecuadorian government; k. On 22 December 2017, a diplomatic note from the US requested Mr. Assange’s provisional arrest pursuant to a criminal complaint; l. On 22 December 2017, Westminster Magistrates’ Court issued a warrant for Mr. Assange’s arrest. m. On 6 March 2018, a federal grand jury in the US returned an indictment against Mr. Assange, charging him with conspiracy to commit unlawful computer intrusion; n. On 11 April 2019, Mr. Assange was arrested at the Ecuadorian embassy and brought before Westminster Magistrates’ Court where he was convicted of an offence under s.6(1) of the Bail Act 1976 and committed to the Crown Court for sentence; o. On 1 May 2019, Mr. Assange was sentenced at the Crown Court at Southwark, to imprisonment for 50 weeks; p. On 23 May 2019, a superseding indictment was returned in the US; q. On 24 June 2020, a second superseding indictment was returned charging Mr. Assange with the 18 counts summarised below; r. On 29 July 2020, the Secretary of State issued a certificate certifying that the request was valid; s. On 7 September 2020, Mr. Assange was arrested on the new request and brought before the court. 9. The evidential hearing took place in February and September 2020, with the first part heard between 24 February and 28 February 2020 at the Woolwich Crown Court and the second part between 7 September 2020 and 1 October 2020 at the Central Criminal Court. Closing submissions were received in writing, by the defence on 6 November and 1 December 2020 (in reply) and by the US on 20 November 2020. Judgment was reserved to 4 January 2021. 10. On 11 April 2019 Mr. Assange was remanded into custody and he has remained in custody throughout these proceedings. B. CONDUCT Second Superseding Indictment 5 11. The second superseding indictment contains the following 18 counts: a. Count 1: Conspiracy to Obtain, Receive, and Disclose National Defense Information, contrary to Title 18, U.S.C. section 793(g), punishable by a maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment. It is alleged that, between 2009 and 2015, outside any particular state or district of the US, Mr. Assange conspired with others known and unknown to commit the following offences: (i) first, to obtain documents relating to national defence including Guantánamo Bay detainee assessment briefs (“the detainee assessment briefs”), US Department of State cables (“the diplomatic cables”), and Iraq rules of engagement files; (ii) to receive and obtain documents relating to the national defence, including the detainee assessment briefs, the diplomatic cables and the Iraq rules of engagement files; (iii) to “communicate” the detainee assessment briefs, the diplomatic cables and the Iraq rules of engagement files to the extent that they contained the names of individuals in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere in the world who risked their safety and freedom by providing information to the US and its allies, from those with lawful possession to those not entitled to receive them; (iv) with Bradley Manning (now known as Chelsea Manning and hereafter referred to as ‘Ms. Manning’), to “communicate” the detainee assessment briefs, the diplomatic cables, and Iraq rules of engagement files, and for Mr. Assange to “communicate” to “certain individuals” and the public (unspecified) documents containing the names of individuals in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere in the world who risked their safety and freedom by providing information to the US and its allies, from those in unauthorised possession of these documents to those not entitled to receive them.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Internet and Drug Markets
    INSIGHTS EN ISSN THE INTERNET AND DRUG MARKETS 2314-9264 The internet and drug markets 21 The internet and drug markets EMCDDA project group Jane Mounteney, Alessandra Bo and Alberto Oteo 21 Legal notice This publication of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) is protected by copyright. The EMCDDA accepts no responsibility or liability for any consequences arising from the use of the data contained in this document. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of the EMCDDA’s partners, any EU Member State or any agency or institution of the European Union. Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016 ISBN: 978-92-9168-841-8 doi:10.2810/324608 © European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, 2016 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. This publication should be referenced as: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (2016), The internet and drug markets, EMCDDA Insights 21, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. References to chapters in this publication should include, where relevant, references to the authors of each chapter, together with a reference to the wider publication. For example: Mounteney, J., Oteo, A. and Griffiths, P.
    [Show full text]
  • Running Head: Wikileaks and the Censorship of News Media in the U.S
    RUNNING HEAD: WIKILEAKS AND THE CENSORSHIP OF NEWS MEDIA IN THE U.S. WikiLeaks and the Censorship of News Media in the U.S. Author: Asa Hilmersson Faculty Mentor: Professor Keeton Ramapo College of New Jersey WIKILEAKS AND THE CENSORSHIP OF NEWS MEDIA IN THE U.S. 1 “Censorship in free societies is infinitely more sophisticated and thorough than in dictatorships, because ‘unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without any need for an official ban’.” – George Orwell Introduction Throughout history, media has been censored or obscured in different ways which seem to fit the dominant ideology or ruling regime. As William Powers (1995) from The Washington Post said; the Nazis were censored, Big Brother was a censor, and nightmare regimes such as China have censors. Though we are all aware of censorship around the world and in history, little do we look to ourselves because as Powers writes, “None of that [censorship] for us. This is America” (para. 3). People in America have long been led to believe that they live in a free world where every voice is heard. It is not until someone uses the opportunities of this right that we see that this freedom of speech might only be an illusion. The emergence of WikiLeaks in 2010 and the censorship exercised against this organization by the United States’ government exemplifies the major obstacles individuals can face when seeking to expose potential wrongdoing by public officials. Through questioning of media’s power as whistleblowers it is hinted that there are institutions which may carry more weight than the truth in making decisions that affect that public interest.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Case of Julian Assange
    The OSCE Secretariat bears no responsibility for the content of this document PC.DEL/262/20 and circulates it without altering its content. The distribution by OSCE 6 March 2020 Conference Services of this document is without prejudice to OSCE decisions, as set out in documents agreed by OSCE participating States. ENGLISH only United States Mission to the OSCE On the Case of Julian Assange As delivered by Acting Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Macris to the Permanent Council, Vienna March 5, 2020 The United States seeks to deter unauthorized disclosure of classified information, including via prosecution. This is done transparently and according to the laws of the United States. In 2013, Chelsea Manning was convicted by court martial for offenses that involved violations of her military oath to protect and defend the United States. As you know, she provided Julian Assange and WikiLeaks with hundreds of thousands of pages of security information related to national defense. The U.S. Department of Justice indicted Julian Assange for his alleged complicity in Manning’s actions, including his explicit solicitation of classified information and his encouraging Ms. Manning to remove classified information from U.S. systems. The indictment also charges Assange for allegedly posting a subset of classified documents on WikiLeaks that identified the names of human sources, including local Afghans and Iraqis who were assisting U.S. forces, journalists, religious leaders, human rights advocates, and political dissidents living in repressive regimes, thereby causing grave and imminent risk to these individuals’ lives and liberty. The United States takes freedom of the press seriously and is thankful for the invaluable role journalists play in a free society.
    [Show full text]
  • Lauri Love -V- the Government of the United States of America & Liberty
    Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWHC 172 (Admin) Case No: CO/5994/2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 05/02/2018 Before: THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE LORD BURNETT OF MALDON THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE OUSELEY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: LAURI LOVE Appellant - and - THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES Respondent OF AMERICA - and - LIBERTY Interested Party - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MR EDWARD FITZGERALD QC AND MR BEN COOPER (instructed by KAIM TODNER SOLICITORS LTD) for the Appellant MR PETER CALDWELL (instructed by CPS EXTRADITION UNIT) for the Respondent MR ALEX BAILIN QC AND MR AARON WATKINS (instructed by LIBERTY) for the Interested Party Hearing dates: 29 and 30 November 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Approved Judgment Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Love v USA THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR JUSTICE OUSELEY : 1. This is the judgment of the Court. 2. Lauri Love appeals against the decision of District Judge Tempia, sitting at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 16 September 2016, to send his case to the Secretary of State for the Home Department for her decision whether to order his extradition to the United States of America, under Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 [“the 2003 Act”]. The USA is a category 2 territory under that Act. On 14 November 2016, the Home Secretary ordered his extradition. 3. The principal
    [Show full text]
  • An Evolving Threat the Deep Web
    8 An Evolving Threat The Deep Web Learning Objectives distribute 1. Explain the differences between the deep web and darknets.or 2. Understand how the darknets are accessed. 3. Discuss the hidden wiki and how it is useful to criminals. 4. Understand the anonymity offered by the deep web. 5. Discuss the legal issues associated withpost, use of the deep web and the darknets. The action aimed to stop the sale, distribution and promotion of illegal and harmful items, including weapons and drugs, which were being sold on online ‘dark’ marketplaces. Operation Onymous, coordinated by Europol’s Europeancopy, Cybercrime Centre (EC3), the FBI, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and Eurojust, resulted in 17 arrests of vendors andnot administrators running these online marketplaces and more than 410 hidden services being taken down. In addition, bitcoins worth approximately USD 1 million, EUR 180,000 Do in cash, drugs, gold and silver were seized. —Europol, 20141 143 Copyright ©2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc. This work may not be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without express written permission of the publisher. 144 Cyberspace, Cybersecurity, and Cybercrime THINK ABOUT IT 8.1 Surface Web and Deep Web Google, Facebook, and any website you can What Would You Do? find via traditional search engines (Internet Explorer, Chrome, Firefox, etc.) are all located 1. The deep web offers users an anonym- on the surface web. It is likely that when you ity that the surface web cannot provide. use the Internet for research and/or social What would you do if you knew that purposes you are using the surface web.
    [Show full text]
  • Play Guide Table of Contents
    PLAY GUIDE TABLE OF CONTENTS ABOUT ATC 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PLAY 2 SYNOPSIS 2 SONG LIST 3 MEET THE CHARACTERS 4 MEET THE CREATORS: PAUL GORDON AND JANE AUSTEN 5 INTERVIEW WITH PAUL GORDON 7 THE NOVEL IN THE MUSIC 9 POLLOCK’S TOY THEATRES 11 LITERARY CATEGORIZATION OF AUSTEN 12 LITERARY TIMELINE 13 THE AUSTEN INDUSTRY 14 AUSTEN IN POPULAR CULTURE 15 FEMINISM IN EMMA 16 THE EMMA DEDICATION 18 HISTORICAL CONTEXT 18 HISTORICAL TIMELINE 22 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND ACTIVITIES 23 Jane Austen’s Emma Play Guide written and compiled by Katherine Monberg, Literary Assistant, and R Elisabeth Burton, Artistic Intern Discussion questions and activities provided by April Jackson, Associate Education Manager, Amber Tibbitts and Bryanna Patrick, Education Associates Support for ATC’s education and community programming has been provided by: APS JPMorgan Chase The Marshall Foundation Arizona Commission on the Arts John and Helen Murphy Foundation The Maurice and Meta Gross Bank of America Foundation National Endowment for the Arts Foundation Blue Cross Blue Shield Arizona Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture The Max and Victoria Dreyfus Foundation Boeing PICOR Charitable Foundation The Stocker Foundation City Of Glendale Rosemont Copper The William L and Ruth T Pendleton Community Foundation for Southern Arizona Stonewall Foundation Memorial Fund Cox Charities Target Tucson Medical Center Downtown Tucson Partnership The Boeing Company Tucson Pima Arts Council Enterprise Holdings Foundation The Donald Pitt Family Foundation Wells Fargo Ford Motor Company
    [Show full text]
  • The Views of the U.S. Left and Right on Whistleblowers Whistleblowers on Right and U.S
    The Views of the U.S. Left and Right on Whistleblowers Concerning Government Secrets By Casey McKenzie Submitted to Central European University Department of International Relations and European Studies In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Supervisor: Professor Erin Kristin Jenne Word Count: 12,868 CEU eTD Collection Budapest Hungary 2014 Abstract The debates on whistleblowers in the United States produce no simple answers and to make thing more confusing there is no simple political left and right wings. The political wings can be further divided into far-left, moderate-left, moderate-right, far-right. To understand the reactions of these political factions, the correct political spectrum must be applied. By using qualitative content analysis of far-left, moderate-left, moderate-right, far-right news sites I demonstrate the debate over whistleblowers belongs along a establishment vs. anti- establishment spectrum. CEU eTD Collection i Acknowledgments I would like to express my fullest gratitude to my supervisor, Erin Kristin Jenne, for the all the help see gave me and without whose guidance I would have been completely lost. And to Danielle who always hit me in the back of the head when I wanted to give up. CEU eTD Collection ii Table of Contents Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... i Acknowledgments.....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wikileaks and the Institutional Framework for National Security Disclosures
    THE YALE LAW JOURNAL PATRICIA L. BELLIA WikiLeaks and the Institutional Framework for National Security Disclosures ABSTRACT. WikiLeaks' successive disclosures of classified U.S. documents throughout 2010 and 2011 invite comparison to publishers' decisions forty years ago to release portions of the Pentagon Papers, the classified analytic history of U.S. policy in Vietnam. The analogy is a powerful weapon for WikiLeaks' defenders. The Supreme Court's decision in the Pentagon Papers case signaled that the task of weighing whether to publicly disclose leaked national security information would fall to publishers, not the executive or the courts, at least in the absence of an exceedingly grave threat of harm. The lessons of the PentagonPapers case for WikiLeaks, however, are more complicated than they may first appear. The Court's per curiam opinion masks areas of substantial disagreement as well as a number of shared assumptions among the Court's members. Specifically, the Pentagon Papers case reflects an institutional framework for downstream disclosure of leaked national security information, under which publishers within the reach of U.S. law would weigh the potential harms and benefits of disclosure against the backdrop of potential criminal penalties and recognized journalistic norms. The WikiLeaks disclosures show the instability of this framework by revealing new challenges for controlling the downstream disclosure of leaked information and the corresponding likelihood of "unintermediated" disclosure by an insider; the risks of non-media intermediaries attempting to curtail such disclosures, in response to government pressure or otherwise; and the pressing need to prevent and respond to leaks at the source. AUTHOR.
    [Show full text]
  • Wikileaks Vault 7 Has Created an Epic Liability Crisis for Corporate Directors
    4/14/2017 Americans for Innovation: WIKILEAKS VAULT 7 HAS CREATED AN EPIC LIABILITY CRISIS FOR CORPORATE DIRECTORS 1 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In SEARCH by topic, keyword or phrase. Type in Custom Search box e.g. "IBM Eclipse Foundation" or "racketeering" Custom Search T u e s d a y , A p r i l 4 , 2 0 1 7 DEEP STATE SHADOW GOVERNMENT POSTER WIKILEAKS VAULT 7 HAS CREATED AN EPIC Harvard | Yale | Stanford Sycophants LIABILITY CRISIS FOR CORPORATE DIRECTORS Updated Mar. 14, 2017. CLICK HERE TO SEE TIMELINE VAULT 7 PROVES THAT CORPORATE DIRECTORS CANNOT OF THE HIJACKING OF THE PROTECT THEIR ASSETS FROM THE ROGUE C.I.A. & NAME INTERNET AND DATABASE BRAND TECHNOLOGY COLLUDERS AS REQUIRED BY THE PAY-t o-PLAY NEW WORLD ORDER BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE This timeline shows how insiders sell access & manipulate politicians, police, intelligence, CONTRIBUTING WRITERS | OPINION | AMERICANS FOR INNOVATION | APR. 04, 2017, UPDATED APR. 14, 2017, judges and media to keep their secrets MAY YOUR GREAT AND HOLY FRIDAY BE A BLESSED ONE | PDF Clintons, Obamas, Summers were paid in cash for outlandish speaking fees and Foundation donations. Contributor: Michael T. McKibben, Chairman & Founder, Leader Technologies, Inc. the real Sycophant judges, poli icians, academics, bureaucrats inventor of social networking and media were fed tips to mutual funds tied to insider stocks like Facebook. Risk of public exposure, blackmail, pedophilia, “snuff par ies” (ritual child sexual abuse and murder) and Satanism have ensured silence among pay-to-play beneficiaries. The U.S. Patent Office is heir toy box.
    [Show full text]
  • Adaptations of Austen: How Does Multimedia Impact Our Ability to Read Between the Lines of Pride and Prejudice and Emma?
    Adaptations of Austen: How Does Multimedia Impact Our Ability to Read Between the Lines of Pride and Prejudice and Emma? Presented to the S. Daniel Abraham Honors Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Completion of the Program Stern College for Women Yeshiva University May 6, 2020 Elka Basya Wiesenberg Mentor: Dr. Nora Nachumi, English Introduction “We’ve all seen it at least once,” says Devoney Looser, in The Making of Jane Austen, “A purist complains that Jane Austen’s fiction is being cheapened or even destroyed by film and television adaptations, [and by] vlogs” (13).1 Some readers of Austen feel that onscreen adaptations are ruining the novels. The characters, the story, the novels do not necessarily translate the way these readers imagined them, and this makes these adaptations undesirable to them, not giving them the experience that they want. Are these purists correct? Are modern adaptations destroying the authentic experience of a Jane Austen novel? Or is there something to be gained from a multimedia adaptation of Austen’s works? To begin to understand these questions, we must explore others. First, we must understand: What is the experience of an Austen novel? Second, we must discuss: How is this experience translated into a screen adaptation? What is different? These are questions that this paper will answer in order to understand the above complaints and prove them partially right-- and partially wrong. An Austen novel’s appeal lies heavily in its narrative voice, its narrator and style, as will be discussed, and this is what we will consider the Austen experience.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 in the Westminster Magistrates' Court Between
    IN THE WESTMINSTER MAGISTRATES’ COURT B E T W E E N: GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Requesting State v JULIAN ASSANGE Defendant _________________________________ DEFENCE SUBMISSIONS: PART ONE _________________________________ ** All references are to the Defence Core Bundle unless otherwise stated 1. Introduction 1.1. These Defence Submissions are in two parts. In Part 1, we provide an overall summary of the case and briefly set out Mr Assange’s position on each of the grounds of abuse, including the Treaty point, and each of the statutory bars. This updates and refines the defence opening; responds to issues raised at the February hearing about the Treaty point and develops the Article 3 and Section 91 argument in more detail. In Part 2 (a separate document) we set out in full the interlinked arguments on Zakrzewski abuse, Article 7 and Article 10, and the related dual criminality point that no extradition crime is made out. That is because these points require amplification from the earlier submissions. 1.2. In these submissions we first summarise the history of this case to demonstrate that the prosecution is not motivated by genuine concerns for criminal justice but by politics. 1 1.3. We next address the three ways in which these proceedings constitute an abuse of process, in the following three separate but overlapping categories: (i) First, the request seeks extradition for what is a classic “political offence”. Extradition for a political offence is expressly prohibited by Article 4(1) of the Anglo-US Extradition Treaty. Therefore, it constitutes an abuse of this Court’s process to require this Court to extradite on the basis of the Anglo-US Treaty in breach of the Treaty’s express provisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Protestformen Im Cyberspace Möglichkeiten Und Grenzen Aus Zivilgesellschaftlicher Sicht
    SOCIOLOGY IN SWITZERLAND Towards Cybersociety and Vireal Social Relations Protestformen im Cyberspace Möglichkeiten und Grenzen aus zivilgesellschaftlicher Sicht Hernani Marques [email protected] Zürich, September 2012 Bibliographische Zitation: Marques, Hernani: Protestformen im Cyberspace. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen aus zivilgesellschaftlicher Sicht. In: Sociology in Switzerland: Towards Cybersociety and Vireal Social Relations. Online Publications. Zürich 2012. http://socio.ch/intcom/t_hmarques.pdf Hernani Marques: Protestformen im Cyberspace http://socio.ch/intcom/t_hmarques.pdf Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 Einleitung .................................................................................................................................. 3 1.1 Gegenstand .................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.2 Fokus und Aufbau ......................................................................................................................................... 4 2 Theorie ...................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Gegenstand .................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.1.1 Meinungsäusserung ............................................................................................................................................... 5
    [Show full text]