DOCSLIB.ORG

Julian Assange Judgment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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
  • 2014 Rule of Law Report | SGI Sustainable Governance Indicators
    Sustainable Governance Indicators SGI 2014 Rule of Law Report Legal Certainty, Judicial Review, Appointment of Justices, Corruption Prevention SGI 2014 | 2 Rule of Law Report Indicator Legal Certainty Question To what extent do government and administration act on the basis of and in accordance with legal provisions to provide legal certainty? 41 OECD and EU countries are sorted according to their performance on a scale from 10 (best) to 1 (lowest). This scale is tied to four qualitative evaluation levels. 10-9 = Government and administration act predictably, on the basis of and in accordance with legal provisions. Legal regulations are consistent and transparent, ensuring legal certainty. 8-6 = Government and administration rarely make unpredictable decisions. Legal regulations are consistent, but leave a large scope of discretion to the government or administration. 5-3 = Government and administration sometimes make unpredictable decisions that go beyond given legal bases or do not conform to existing legal regulations. Some legal regulations are inconsistent and contradictory. 2-1 = Government and administration often make unpredictable decisions that lack a legal basis or ignore existing legal regulations. Legal regulations are inconsistent, full of loopholes and contradict each other. Estonia Score 10 The rule of law is fundamental to Estonian government and administration. In the period of transition from communism to liberal democracy, most of the legal acts and regulations had to be amended or introduced for the first time. Joining the European Union in 2004 caused another major wave of legal reforms. These fast and radical changes, which occurred in a short timespan, caused some inconsistencies and unexpected legal amendments (for example the increase of the VAT in 2009).
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • A Quiet Revolution
    A quiet revolution The moral economies shaping journalists’ use of NGO-provided multimedia in mainstream news about Africa Katherine Wright Goldsmiths, University of London A thesis submitted for the degree of PhD in Media and Communications 2014 1 Declaration I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by another person, nor material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma of the university or other institute of higher learning, except where due acknowledgement has been made in the text. 2 Acknowledgements With grateful thanks to my study participants for their time, trust and candour - without you there would be no study. I also want to thank my supervisor, Natalie Fenton, who manages to combine the sharpest of minds with the warmest of hearts. Your support has meant so much to me over the past few years. The encouragement and constructive criticism of others at Goldsmiths has also been invaluable, especially Aeron Davis, Des Freedman and Gholam Khiabany, who all kindly read drafts of chapters for me. Next, I want to note my debt to my dear colleagues in Journalism at the University of Roehampton. I especially want to thank Ros Coward, whose passionate belief that practitioners should ‘get into’ research started me off down this route in the first place. In addition, the words of advice and support from colleagues at other institutions have been really helpful, especially those of Mel Bunce, Lilie Chouliaraki, Glenda Cooper, Nick Couldry, Shani Orgad, Chris Paterson, Martin Scott, Helen Yanacopulos and Silvio Waisbord.
    [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]
  • The Whistleno. 96, October 2018
    “All that is needed for evil to prosper is for people of good will to do nothing”—Edmund Burke The Whistle No. 96, October 2018 Newsletter of Whistleblowers Australia (ISSN 2205-0299) Reality Winner, imprisoned whistleblower Articles National Appreciation Day. The Senate resolu- tion encourages US federal agencies to Whistleblower Day inform IN 1777, ten sailors and marines from employees, contractors working on the ship Warren petitioned the US behalf of United States taxpayers, Continental Congress — the precursor and members of the public about the of the US Congress — to take action legal rights of citizens of the United against their commander, the first States to “blow the whistle” by commodore of the US Navy, who they honest and good faith reporting of alleged was war profiteering and misconduct, fraud, misdemeanors, mistreating prisoners of war. Congress or other crimes to the appropriate supported them, including when the authorities. commander took them to court. On July 30 the following year, the The resolution also acknowledges the US Continental Congress unani- After Whistleblowers Australia formed contributions whistleblowers have mously: in 1991, we were in contact with the made, at their own personal risk, NWC to support Australian whistle- “combating waste, fraud, abuse.” Resolved, That it is the duty of all blowers from the late 1980s, those who The US Congress has not yet desig- persons in the service of the United had forced the 1989 Queensland nated July 30 as National Whistle- States, as well as all other the in- Fitzgerald Inquiry and ones who later blower Day on a permanent basis.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States Court of Appeals for The
    Case: 17-15458 Date Filed: 01/31/2018 Page: 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _______________________ No. 17-15458 _______________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. REALITY LEIGH WINNER, Defendant-Appellant _______________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia _______________________ BEFORE: MARTIN, JORDAN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Reality Winner, who is charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) by allegedly providing a classified top-secret government document to a news organization without authorization, appeals from the district court’s pretrial detention order. The district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that no condition, or combination of conditions, would reasonably assure Ms. Winner’s presence at trial, which is currently scheduled for March of 2018. See 18 U.S.C. § Case: 17-15458 Date Filed: 01/31/2018 Page: 2 of 5 3142(e)(1). See also United States v. Medina, 775 F.3d 1398, 1402 (11th Cir. 1985) (holding that risk of flight under the Bail Reform Act is determined under a preponderance of the evidence standard). Generally speaking, cases arising under the Bail Reform Act present mixed questions of law and fact which receive plenary review on appeal, but purely factual findings are reviewed only for clear error. See United States v. King, 849 F.2d 485, 487 (11th Cir. 1988); United States v. Hurtado, 779 F.2d 1465, 1471-72 (11th Cir. 1985). As explained in Hurtado, conclusions concerning the nature and circumstances of the offense and the weight of the evidence under § 3142(g)(1)- (2), as well as the factors set forth in § 3142(c)(1)(B), require the exercise of judgment and are reviewed de novo.
    [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]