275 posts • joined 31 Aug 2007
Re: Well he's a bit of an arse, but...
"The problem of course is that these charges are sealed. The US has no business calling itself a free or democratic society if a person can be charged without actually being informed of those charges."
They're only sealed at the point of being filed. They do that while they to prepare to collect evidence based on those claims, or because they're getting similar charges filed against others where revealing one means those connected know they're vulnerable.
It's also used in more complex investigations, where you'll be accruing charges as time goes on, it might be charge A now, and then 3 weeks later as you're still processing the evidence, you might go through 3 other people and suddenly have a charge B to add.
Before anything can be done about it, those charges become unsealed. Now, another fun thing is that indictments aren't permanent. They have a shelf-life, typically 180 days ('speedy trial act') before they expire. This clock doesn't run when they're sealed, but sealing is a 'special' action, and you really have to justify it to the judge why it's being sealed. If you lie about it, the indictment can be dismissed (especially if absent the seal, it goes over the time limit and thus violates the requirement in the constitution for a speedy trial.
BTW, an indictment is just an initial step than the UK doesn't have. It's basically a process where a prosecutor presents whatever evidence they feel they want to show to a neutral party (the grand jury) to demonstrate that the minimum barrier of 'probable cause' exists. I don't do criminal law, but my belief is that in the UK, the equivilent step is the police officer's discretion.
"Unless they were going to extradite him on one reasonable charge and then unseal a raft of trumped up charges the moment he lands, with the intention of dragging him through a show trial and setting an example. "
Ohhh no. absolutely not. That's actually THE central pillar of all extradition treaties, and is called the 'Doctrine of Speciality'. There's two aspects to it, and usually it's the other one that Assange makes claims about being violated.
Basically put, a person extradited can only be taken to trial for the crimes listed in the extradition request. Country Alpha makes a request to country Zulu Person A is to be sent to country alpha, to face trial for charges 1-13. You can't slip person B in there, you can't decide that you'll send them on to country bravo, or add charges 14-42. That country, for those charges only, and afterwards, they get to leave the country.
That's why Assange's claim of 'Sweden will send me to the US' is ludicrous, because it's specifically prohibited in all extradition treaties. That 'can' happen, but there's a specific process. Basically if it did happen, and Alpha wanted to send him on to Bravo, then it'd start a whole new process. In the claimed case, both the UK and Sweden would have new hearings, and we'd use the strictest aspects of the treaties (which is the Swedish treaty with the US by FAR) for both countries, and both countries would have to fully agree.
that's why it doesn't happen EVER. ESpecially in Assange's case, since the Us-Sweden treaty prohibits extradition for 'political crimes', which these would be, so it'd be an automatic denial of extradition from both the UK and Sweden if the US asked SWeden to send him on.
by comparison, the UK extradition treaty with the US is unique in that while the US has to show evidence to back up the charges and request in other countries, in the UK the DOJ just has to assert that relevant evidence does exist. It's an INCREDIBLY low bar and one the US would use if they had any desire for Assange during the 600+ days he was roaming free, before the Swedish extradition request became final (and thus no new request could be considered)
That clear things up?
Re: For what it is worth
I'm not worried about the down-voters, there's always gonig to be his true believers that will defend him no matter what. The sad fact is they constantly point to just one source as their justificatoin, that being assange's own website.
That site ignores a lot of facts (the 'lie by omission') sensationalises others (it likes to call the opinion by the UN working group - which was written by 2 people of a 5 person committee, with the other 3 seats consisting of a vacant seat, the one who was opposed and called the opinion lunacy, and the last member who was also opposed to the opinion but had to recuse themselves because they were Australian like Assange - a 'UN Ruling' [which it's not] with the force of law [it isn't].
Assange could also provide some evidence to back his claims he didn't flee Sweden. Really simple stuff in fact. He could provide a ticket stub for his trip to the UK, showing when he went, and when he booked it to show it wasn't booked right after his lawyer had been told he was going to be arrested the next day. They could show some evidence of his business in the UK that had been negotiated before that time too. That would bolster his case incredibly, yet he's refused to do it. Even bak in Feb2011 he refused to share his travel details with the court to support his own claim that he wasn't fleeing after his lawyer was told of the arrest. he couldn't point to a single act in the UK that wasn't arranged after he got to the UK, or the evening of his travel (basically he can show no reason why he had to go to the UK)
there's just so many holes and contradictions in Assange's own statements, and claims that it's hard to take him seriously. Remember, he was in the UK for 600+ days, taking the same daily route each of those days along a rural country lane, on foot, at a fixed time, to a rural police station to report for bail. It was only when the threat of US extradition was removed (by a final order being handed down by the SCOTUK) that he suddenly worried about US 'snatch squads', and 'US extradition', despite the demonstration of Lee howard that he mentioned in August 2010 when he announced that he was seeking residency there (lee howard was the only cia official to defect to the USSR. Sweden refused to hand him over to the US, despite the president having a reelection fight, being the VP during the defection and a former CIA head..
There's just nothing to Assange's claims, and never have been. And I've discussed this with a few friends, including some that were also investigated by this same grand jury (and came to the US to visit without any problems in 2013) and another who has visited Assange in the embassy a few times.
There's just nothing to his claims, and never has been, except 'I'm julian assange, and laws shouldn't apply to me because I own a website where other people provide the content"
I never said it did.
However, he's not in ecuador, he's in the UK.
That an extradition order can't be enacted, doesn't mean it can't be applied for.
It can't be an extradition request placed on ecuador, because he's not there. now they can make a request to have him leave the embassy, but still the extradition request would have to be filed with the UK, because as soon as he steps outside the flat, he's libel for arrest, no matter whose custody he's in.
Re: For what it is worth
ok, here's how we know it's not from 2010.
Because compared to the others investigated by that grand jury, Assange did the least. It's well known he didn't do any work ont he actual docs, that was others (like Birgitta Jonnsdotter who worked on the collateral murder video). also, said people have come to the US since then and left (I wish I could have met up with them - was invited but I was nowhere near NYC at the time)
Second, if they had done it back then, the idea time to unseal it and use it for an extradition order was between december 2010 and July 2012, when he was out and about int he UK. the US has a very lax extradition treaty with the US. It has a very strict one with sweden. Once the Swedish order was final (no futher appeals possible) there was no chance of US extradition. That point was 2 days before he ran into the embassy.
Also, under the thing known as 'doctrine of specialty', only the things and crimes int he extradition treaty can be tried in the country asking for htem. You can't add more charges, you can't send the person off elsewhere. had the Us wanted Sweden to sent them assange, then they'd have to do a whole nother extradition request and court battle, using the strictest laws, and it'd have to be approved by both the UK and Sweden. Oh, and Sweden doesn't extradite for political crimes, as Assange knows well (he referenced that when he annoucned he was seeking residency in Sweden, specifically that they don't allow extradition to the US for political crimes.) Sweden actaully refused to even consider extraditing the one and only CIA officer to ever defect to the USSR, whats more it was when NATO power was important because of a destablised russia, and where the president was in a re-election bid, had been vice president when the guy had defected, and had also been head of the CIA. Trump and obama's claimed motivations were NOTHING on Bush Snr's, and yet Sweden still told them to naff off.
Third, indictments only have a certain shelf life, usually 180 days. if you don't use it in that time, it's lost. The clock doens't run if it's sealed though, BUT to get it sealed and continue keepign it sealed, you ahve to convince a judge that awareness of the indictment will jeopardise evidence and cause witnesses/suspects to flee. In the massing case, since we know it wasn't before 2012 (because it wasn't acted on) it was after he was in the embassy, saying there's an indictment for me on these charges, and every relevant person was known. There is no justification to seal it (because if it were unsealed for use, it would be trivial to prove improper sealing, and thus a violation fo the speedy trial act, and it'd be thrown out and the prosector explaining his perjury to the judge.
So thats how we know it's nothing to do with the Manning stuff, and must be mueller.
Now, onto other things. You didn't endure a 20 month trial. you may have had a trial which spanned 20 months, but that's not uncommon. Hell, the civil trials for prenda took a lot longer. by '20 month trial' they meant continuously heard. not 'here's a hearing, adjurn for 6 momths and another hearing, then a continuouance, and another hearing 9 months later, which would be 3 days of trials over 15 months.
Also, no, no cops are watching him, and haven't been for years. And deport him to australia or ecuador on what basis? Right now the UK courts want him (abscondment) and then if it's before 2020, Sweden will want him for the rape charges (they were suspended because they can't pursue the next step, which is arrest and charging, not because they don't think there's a case)
Re: For what it is worth
it's unlikely to be that. They know that he had very little involvement in the leaks, compared to the others they were investigating - he literally just wrote hte press releases (what, you thought he actually did the work? he has acolytes for that, while he decides how to 'maximise impact' and 'control the message'.
Those that did the actual work have travelled in and out of hte US for years without a problem.
Another fun thing, the longest known Grand Jury investigation is 6 years. Are you telling me they spent 8 on this, when a lot was prety clear cut, and if they'd wanted to try for an indictment, it would have been easy enough to get one back in 2011 with what they knew.
Plus it'd require someone to be really sloppy, given none of the prosecutors involved in the the case these paragraphs were in were invovled in the Manning investigation, while they have been working cases referred by Mueller.
Also, you probably don't know US law that well, but the paragraph that was included about the reasons for sealing, yeah, that doesn't make sense in context with the Manning case, but does for the Mueller case. You have to prove a need to seal it, and since Assange has been claiming there's a secret indictment about the manning case since 2012 (only, coincidentally, starting the day after he lost his final appeal and was told he'd be sent to sweden in 2 weeks, not a peep about it for the 600+ days he was in the UK and the US could have filed an extradition request, or easily snatched him)
Re: it may be something, may be nothing
That was my first thought, but it's a copy-paste, because the two paragraphs that include his name don't make sense with the surrounding paragraphs and the case as a whole.
The eastern district federal courts are split into 4 divisions, one of them, Alexandria, includes Quantico (FBI training base) and Langley, which is the CIA headquarters. Also Arlington Hall (former NSA hq, and now where the national foreign affairs training center, where they train people for the Foreign Affairs Institute to become diplomats).
Generally, all foreign-related cases go there, rather than clog the DC federal court, which tends to focus more on domestic cases involving the government, especially executive agencies.
Re: Well he's a bit of an arse, but...
A very good point.
I was thinking of this entirely in light of the Manning case and investigation, but yes, it could indeed be Mueller related and to his contacts and actions regarding Trump and possibly the DNC leak.
That would also explain a few things, like why it would be under seal, and why they'd be filing an indictment now when the facts have been known for 8 years (which would have made it the longest grand jury ever, I believe, beating the previous record of 6 years, and the only one to year the standard 3-year time limit TWICE)
it may be something, may be nothing
Here's the thing, we've no idea what the document this copy-paste came from could be.
It could be an actual application for sealing, it could be a training case study, it could be from a book. It could have been from an old application from 2011 that was denied, and someone was reading over and copied bits from.
Thing is, the copied bits don't make sense. his whereabouts are known, he's claimed there's indictments against him so there's no surprise needed to obtain evidence that someone aware of an indictment might destroy..
So the justification for sealing doesn't fit reality, which means no current judge (or indeed any judge in the last 5 years) would grant it as it provides no benefit. Unsealing and using it to lodge an extradition request from the UK (not ecuador, because while he's in their embassy, he's still in the UK) would materially change nothing.
So while it may be something, what that something is, is probably a big nothing.
"No, I don't mean the alleged rape case which Swedes closed (after they questioned him). And so conveniently reopened later on."
That's true, if by 'closed' you mean 'prosecutor thought the women wouldn't go through with it" and if by "conveniently reopened" you mean "women got a lawyer and appealed her decision to close it to a more senior prosecutor who agreed that the first prosecutors reasoning was stupid".
Or do you mean 'conveneiently ' in the sense of assange fleeing SWeden the day before an interview that had been planned more than a week before, just hours after his lawyer was told he'd be arrested at that interview? or do you mean convenient int he way that said lawyer said he never talked to Assange, between arranging the interview, and the day after the interview and didn't even try?
Or do you mean convenient like how at his first extradition hearing all his expert witnesses were strongly denouncing the treatment of Assange based entirely on what Assange's lawyer had told them? (fun fact, they basically turned on him when they had evidence that Assange's lawyers had delibereately - 'conveniently'? - kept from them.
Re: "and the more recent 2018 rules"
the only 'nonsense' was Pai's decision not to publish them.
Federal rules only come into force a certain time after they're published in the Federal Register, unless in that publication they're given an even later start date.
Pai chose to hold off publishing them, and then set a later start date than the minimum required, which put the start date in June.
However, they are, and always will be '2017 rules', as that's when they were passed. If he'd chosen to set an effective date of 2021, you wouldn't call them the 2021 rules, would you? And in the same way, we refer to the 2005 rules, the 2010 rules that superseded them, and the 2015 rules, based entirely on their date of passing, rather than their effective start date.
"and the more recent 2018 rules"
They're the 2017 rules, passed in December 2017.
Re: "Ethernet is so much better"
"Then the clever bods came up with the idea of using twisted pair cabling "
I dunno about 'clever bods'. The guy that claimed to have invented that wrote this almost 10 years ago
5 days later, he was forced to publish a retraction (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/05/richard_bennett_bittorrent_udp/) after many people (including yours truly, who got told by Bennett that he didn't like detailed comments and would be putting a word limit on comments on his blog) pointed out to him that what he thought packets did, wasn't what actually happened, and what he claimed would happen wouldn't happen even if you doubled his worst-case scenario. (bennett still stalks me online, and likes to try and derail technical discussions by pointing out I've worked for both the Pirate Party, and as a defense expert in bittorrent lawsuits).
But who knows, maybe it was the clever bods in the team that did it, and Bennett just claims fame where none is deserved as he was the secretary, or teaboy or whatever (but he does claim to be 'co-inventor of twisted-pair networking')
Re: Conspiracy theories
no, he left first, the day before he was to be interviewed (and where his lawyer had been told he'd probably be arrested, hence his flight to the UK, the only country he could enter without a visa and stay in for more than the 24 days left on his schengen visa) which was September 27.
The first hearing at the stockholm court was 18 november 2010.
The Svea court of appeal hearing was 24 november 2010
They appealed to the Swedish Supreme Court, their application was denied (nothing new, novel, unusual, etc)
the EAW was issued 26 november 2010.
SOCA certified the EAW on december 6, and on the 7th Assange handed himself in.
" But it's also where knowledge of Swedish criminal procedures might confuse things. So why the need for further police interviews, if charges have already been presented to the Swedish courts and appealed. I'm assuming that's around the difference between having evidence to charge vs evidence to prosecute."
The Swedish legal system isn't like the UK/Us one, not exactly.
What was presented was in some ways similar to what the US would call an indictment, although my understanding is that there is the ability for the defense to have some exculpatory input. However, fleeing the country the night before a scheduled interview, then refusing to return (that's what happened through october 2010) does put the preponderance of evidence squarely in the area of 'feeling guilty and avoiding arrest'. Especially when, in August, he applied for a work/residence permit, and issued a press release saying he was moving there because they have a great and fair justice system, a free and open press, and they don't extradite to the US for political crimes (famously, Sweden refused to extradite the only CIA officer to defect to the USSR, and just to amp the US pressure up a bit, the President at the time was VP when the defection happened, and was a former head of the CIA - it was personal for Bush Snr)
Anyway, the format of Swedish law and policing is that there has to be a final interview first, and then following that interview is the arrest and charging, with appearing at court soon after. They needed the interview to then do the arrest and charging. By comparison, under the UK system, he'd have been arrested on suspicion of the charge for the first interview, and charged and bailed to appear pending further investigations. This was pointed out to him and his team by the High court Judge who kept trying to conflate the UK and Swedish terms for 'charged', by saying 'but he hasn't been charged' using the Swedish literal to imply failure to reach the UK standard.
As for it being a false claim, it's unlikely. It fits with what I've heard of him from those who've worked with him. His responses are also not the kind typical of an innocent man, especially with the resources and knowledge he had to hand. his arguments against the charges are also bizarre in their terrible fabrication. Such as claiming the women dropped the charges, when in fact when the original prosecutor dropped it, they hired a lawyer to appeal that. And so on.
They've even started pointing to the high court stipulations to try and prove their narrative and re-write facts, seems they're oblivious to the fact that barristers will agree to stipulations that have little relevance to the elements of the case even if they're not wholely true, because 'its not worth arguing over that'.
Big flaw in your reasoning...
He never claimed political asylum, he has stated over and over that he specifically didn't claim asylum, but instead some completely unheard of 'refugee' status, that he created himself.
Another problem, is that he is an Australian citizen, claiming refugee status in Ecuador, but he can't decide if he's a refugee from Sweden (where he applied for residency and heavily praised their courts in announcing that) his home country of Australia, or the UK, a country he decided to travel to solely to avoid interview/arrest in Sweden.
He 100% doesn't fit any of the accepted refugee categories, which is why no-one accepts his claims, and why it always makes me laugh when he says 'we've a 100% record for truth' when they have a 20% record on truth (and dropping all the time) - they have a 100% authenticity record with released documents, so far, but that's a very different thing.
"What I don't understand is given Assange has had access to some heavyweight legal support, he didn't just deal with the Swedish charges."
In late 2010 he had 3 court hearings, at the STockholm district court, the Svea court of appeals and then the Swedish Supreme Court. this was after the arrest warrant was issued, but before he turned himself in to UK police (so october-december 2010).
He got some of the charges dismissed, and some downgraded at the appeals court, but that was it. There's a lot to this case most people don't get, because they don't read swedish, and too many accept Assange's claims (and the claims on his website) as somewhat truthful. I mean people still talk about 'hillary wanting to dronestrike him', despite it being a complete invention by him, without anything to back it, then her being asked about it and saying I don't remember it, and making a joke of it, which his supporters took as confirmation. I mean you gotta be some kind of incompetent moron to even think of an idea like that, and then completely ignorant of air security in capital cities (which Clinton is not) to even think it's possible.
Re: I really hope he gets the boot
Oh, sweden will extradite him.
The charges have been dropped only because they can't take the next step, which is 'arrest then charge'.
And just like how 'charged' means something different in the Swedish system. They can reactive the charges any time until the statute of limitations, and request he be sent over to face the rape charges. That's why he hasn't left.
He'll stay there until they expire, then leave. Remember, he said 18 months ago that he would be fine with going to the US if Manning got Clemency (https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/819630102787059713). Manning's been out 18 months after Obama granted clemency, he's still hiding... from Sweden.
Re: ER, no, the court will be quite clear
You should probably check who you're replying to a little better*, before trying that stunt, or at least reading what I wrote.
The 2015 order put it back under Title II, just as it was before 2005, the forbearance in the 2015 order are actually more extensive than they were pre 2005 (meaning more exceptions).
So, the regs in the 2015 order were weaker than they were 1993-2005, by your own timeframe.
(* It's not a great idea to try BS-ing the guy that was directly involved in the 2008 Comcast enforcement and order, and who has studied the topic for 11 years .It leads to you being laughed at A LOT.)
ER, no, the court will be quite clear
"It's impossible to know how that will turn out. The whole issue of net neutrality has ended up in the courts so may times, sometimes overturned, sometimes not, that no one is comfortable predicting the outcome.
The original net neutrality rules were overturned following a Verizon legal challenge, prompting the new set of rules that actually stood up to a legal challenge but as of today have been reversed. Will the new, new, new rules stand up to challenge? Who knows? It really is 50-50."
It's not even close to 50-50.
The first case on this issue happened 02-05 ('BrandX), it was over hte ability of the FCC to reclassify ISPs from Title II to Title I. It said the FCC had that authority, but only on good evidence.
The 2008-2010 challenge on the 2005 (post Title 1 reclassification) rules said that the 2005 net neutrality rules were uneofrcable as written, because it needed the ISPs to be Title II to enforce.
The 2010-2014 legla challenge was against the updated version of the Rules (the 2010 open internet order) which based its authority on a different section of title I. The courts knocked it back again because it was again, not Title II based.
Thus we had the Title II reclassification rules (2015) which got a challenge. this challenge lasted until 2016, with the courts ruling that they did have the authority to reclassify them BACK to Title I as there was substantive evidence to support it, and the rules were fair and legal.
And this is where this challenge will work in the courts. The Pai order was based on zero evidence, and no public support. Nothing had changed since 2015. Thus the change was 'arbitrary and capricious', and as such, is not a valid change. This was part of the BrandX ruling, that such changes had to be on a strong footing, and repeating the same mantra as they did in 05 (which turned out to not work) and falsely misstating history, is not a good basis for this change. So they'll overturn it.
Re: I hadn't thought of it before
The Congressional Review Act is a piece of legislation that is used to show Congressional Disapproval for an act by an executive branch agency.
In effect, it reverses the actions of the agency, restoring them to the pre-act status, and then prevents the agency from trying to enact the same regulations again without Congressional approval.
Re: actual legislation, not regulatory gerrymandering
Do you mean they should never have reclassified it BACK to that?
Or did you not know that in 2005 the FCC reclassified ISPs from Title II to title I following the BrandX decision (which was a SCOTUS verdict on the ability for them to do so)
Or were you also unaware that the 2015 rules were the 3rd attempt to implement rules, the first being the 05 rules first used in 08 after the comcast bittorrent thing, that the courts knocked back in 2010, the second being the 2010 Open Internet Order based on a different part of Title I, both times said 'if you want these rules to continue, then you need to put it back under Title I.
BTW, "booo Title II [Communications services] is an old outdated 1930s law! It needs to be under Title I [Informational or one-way services] OF THE SAME LAW instead!
personal domain correction
"A related change will be that Nominet will no longer draw a distinction between domain names registered by individuals and used for personal reasons and those registered by corporations for commercial reasons (currently it redacts personal-use domain data)."
Not 'quite' the case.It allowed personal users to obscure it, IF (and only if) they decided the site was to be personal. And if your site had an email subscription signup, or it linked to commercial sites (I had a link to a book I wrote available on Amazon) then it would consider the site 'commercial', and there's no way to appeal it. I found this out the hard way a few years ago.
Re: It could be have been worse...
As many upvotes for you, Danny 2, as there are people who believe Assange's nonsense about US persecution.
... if I could, anyway.
Re: It would take a heart of stone not to laugh...
Must be why the people that actually worked on the releases (Assange doesn't do any of the grunt work, he just does press releases) have traveled to the US without incident for the last 5 years.
Or why if he was so worried about US extradition, he went from Sweden (doesn't extradite for political crimes) to the UK (express treaty). And if he was worried about 'black bag squads', he wouldn't have spent some 600 days walking the exact same rural route, at the same time every single day, to report to a rural police station as his bail conditions. Fixed route, fixed time, on foot, middle of nowhere, it's a snatch-squad DREAM. And yet this massive concern only raised its head after the Supreme Court threw out his final appeal - the point where he realised 'oh sh*t, I will have to go back to Sweden'.
Same with his run from Sweden. If you're told one afternoon that the appointment next morning with the prosecutor will have you arrested and charged, you'd leave the country. So where do you go for a month or two, when you're 60 days into a 90 day schengen visa, and have to go THAT NIGHT. UK's the only choice left - as a commonwealth citizen he can enter without a visa for 180 days. Anywhere else either wouldn't land in time (australia) if there were flights available, requires a visa, or would limit him to 30 days. As a benefit, UK speaks english, and has a markedly different legal system than Sweden.
If you were afraid of the US, you'd never set foot in the UK, you'd go elsewhere in schengen, and then head back to Australia. ESpecially as a month or two earlier you'd been bigging up how you were applying for Swedish residency because they don't extradite to the US. (and yes, it's happened. in 92 the US requested extradition of a US citizen who was in Sweden. That citizen was charged with espionage, mainly because he was the ONLY CIA officer to defect to the USSR. Bear in mind, the president was Bush sr, who was the former head of the CIA and vice president when the guy defected. Sweden still said no, and let him go.
Re: Rather predictable
He never claimed asylum
He claimed refugee status,
"There has never been an asylum agreement between Mr. Assange and Ecuador. There is no legal framework to make such sn agreement. Assange went through the stardard refugee process then applied for naturaluzation as was his right after three years."
thing is, he doesn't meet ANY of the criteria for refugee status, which is why no-one recognised it.
Re: Can you stop repeating Boris shite
which phosphorus was it? 32 or 33?
I know 33 is preferred because it's much lower energy makes for better resolution, but 32 is cheaper.
And lets see polonium 210 (the most common isotope) has an ionising energy of 5MeV
P-33 1.27MeV, and 932 0.25MeV
Of course, polonium is a massive emitter, unlike phosporus, which is probably why the LD50 for polonium is 1 microgram/person, while for phosphorus it's... 3 mg/kg for white, and a lot more for red (rats are 11mg/kg, while rabbits are 105mg/kg)
So, a small city is 50,000. average person is what, 75kg? So, if I've done my maths right, thats about 35.5kg to manage a dose sufficient to kill HALF that population (statistically) Let's round it to 40 to kill most in the normal distribution curve.
they have you carrying 40kg on the bus? Dude, you didn't "work in molecular biology", you "worked in low level courier work", maybe for a molecular biology client, although I doubt it.
Alternatively, you're just blowing hot air because you think you know something, and you really don't.
Re: Funny people should accuse Assange of disrespect for the law
"Innocence or guilt of what? Assange has not been charged with any crime in any country.
The Swedish authorities asked to interview him; he waited for several weeks during which they chose not to, then returned to London at which point they immediately issued a warrant for his arrest."
Sorry, no matter how bold the font on Assange's website making those claims are, it doesn't make them true. We've known this claim has been false for about 7 years now, ever since his first UK court hearing. You know, the one where Assange's own lawyer was forced to admit that this story was - in fact - a deliberate lie. You know, where he then was asked to read out the text messages on his phone, one of which was from the prosecutor, reminding him about the scheduled interview the morning after Assange traveled (NOT RETURNED) to the UK.
Oh, and at that interview, he was to be arrested and charged. His lawyer was informed of that too, the day before. That's why Assange suddenly traveled tot he UK, as he was not scheduled to be there (and in fact knew NOT to go, because he'd applied for residency in Sweden, which meant he couldn't go). It is also an odd country to go to if you're wanting to avoid extradition to the US, especially after having boasted 2 months earlier how you're going for Swedish residence because they don't extradite to the US for political crimes. It's your only choice if you have to leave Sweden THAT DAY, are an Australian citizen, and have under 30 days left on your Schengen visa, because you don't need a visa to enter the uk for upto 180 days.
Oh, and he had been interviewed a few times before then too, that's why there was the arrest scheduled.
"He sought political asylum because he believed - I think rightly - that if he gave himself up he would find himself, first in Sweden, then in the USA, and finally in an unmarked grave before he could blink."
Again, as mentioned, he made a press release when he announced he was applying for Swedish residency, that it was because they don't extradite to the US for political crimes. he knows as well as we all do, there was no risk. And if he did believe that (which he didn't) the last place he'd go would be the UK, with its express extradition agreement.
Also, less than a year after he ran to the embassy, I was invited to have lunch with one of the people who was also involved in the Manning leak and was investigated with Assange by the Grand Jury (but they actually worked on the leak, processing it - specifically the Collateral Murder video - not writing press releases which is all Assange reportedly did), the lunch was in... New York City, where they were visiting, and where they had no problems entering or exiting the country. Funny that, eh? (for the record, I couldn't make it to New York, but other friends did and had an enjoyable time)
They can do that, and the moment they do, it no longer becomes a diplomatic bag.
Diplomatic bags are not allowed to contain anything alive. If they have reason to suspect there's a person in a diplomatic pouch, that's actually one of the few reasons for the courier to be stopped and the pouch opened as by definition, it's not protected.
Re: What would happen if Assange stepped out ?
And the reason they didn't do it for the year and a bit he was on a daily walk, in a rural area, unprotected, at hte same time, over the same route to a rural police station for his bail is?? a so-called snatch-squad could easily have made off with him in 2011. or half of 2012.
They didn't because they don't want him.
Re: Schrödinger's Embassy
One's a press release, has no evidential basis. And Trump's always been big on 'loyalty' and he'll try and push for leakers of his administration.
As for the second, where's the indictment then? no indictment, no charges, no extradition order. Oh it's sealed? Sealed so that he'll be unaware of its existance and thus won't attempt to destroy or conceal evidence that may be gathered against him (the reason for sealing)
The problem with this is that Assange has actually done everything possible to make a sealed indictment a legal no-go. As he thinks there's one, he'll act as if there is one, and thus it's not possible to justify sealing it. And if they had got an indictment that wasn't sealed, we'd already know about it. In addition, since it hadn't been presented for the basis of an extradition warrant, it's now invalid as it was not acted on in a timely manner.
It's these little things that torpedo his claims.
Re: Schrödinger's Embassy
Actually, we do already know. they don't want him.
not only have they stated that themselves at numerous points, Everyone else in the grand jury investigation (those that did the work and not just write the press releases) have not been snatched, or extradited. They've not even had problems when they've visited the US.
Additionally, for someone who feared the US, funny how he went from a country that doesn't extradite to the US for political crimes (Sweden) straight to the country with the lowest bar for US extradition (UK). The only reason he'd have gone to the UK is if he needed to leave Sweden quick (that evening) and wanted to stay more than 30 days, as he only had 21 days left on a schengen visa at the time. As a commonwealth citizen, he had no visa requirements and leave to stay for 180 days - ideal if your lawyer has just told you that you'll be arrested at the interview scheduled for the morning.
He then spent 600 days in the UK, in a known address, walking the same route at the same time, to a rural police station. If he was afraid of extralegal incarceration (extraordinary rendition) why wasn't it a problem then? Why was it only suddenly a problem 2 days after a final order to send him on to Sweden had been sent down.
Next, to this day, no indictment. I believe the grand jury has even been disbanded, so no new one can come down. Under the speedy trial act, they've got 180 days to act on the indictment or its dead, so any that had been handed down would be dead unless sealed, and it wouldn't be sealed, because there's no point - they get sealed just to prevent the knowledge of them, but since he believes theres one, there's no justification possible for sealing it. So no indictment, means no extradition.
Legally, factually, there's absolutely no basis to believe that there was ever a threat of involuntary US holidays for Assange ,but it's a useful bogieman for him to trot out and feed his paranoia.and it has essentially become the cornerstone of the Assange branding.
Yes, we've all considered 'extraordinary rendition' and 'unfortunate accident'.
Problem is, he spent 600 days in the UK where he traveled a fixed route on foot, in a rural area, at a set time every single day (when he was reporting for bail). If there was going to be an extraordinary rendition, or an accident, it would have happened there and then.
Likewise with a US extradition request, which would have competed with the Swedish one (leading the Foreign office and the judiciary to come to a decision) at least right up until the final Supreme Court ruling, two days before he ran to the embassy which made the Swedish extradition final and permanent.
Also, more fun facts, every one else investigated by the [now disbanded] Grand Jury, has had no such fears, even though they did the actual work on the cables and videos, and didn't just write a press release. Some even visited the US in 2013 and had no problems, no arrests, etc.
If you have (or had) little kids, you'll understand the bedtime problem. Every time it's bedtime, there's something else that just came up that means they can't go to sleep; they're hungry, they want a glass of water, there's a monster under the bed, read them a story etc. The claims about the US are nothing but 'monster under the bed is going to eat me' claims.
Re: @ Ben ... A Flagrant Rotten Denial of Justice and a Blot in the UKGBNI Landscape
"I'm not sure these is any circumstances that Sweden would hand assange over to the US.
I base this off the fact of a US airman that went awol and illegally entered Sweden and Sweden to this day refuse hand him over."
Sweden does not extradite to the US for 'political crimes'. That includes espionage, going AWOL, etc.
Sweden was the second most common destination after Canada for those dodging the Vietnam draft (after canada because of its proximity) because of this.
In 1992 the *ONLY* CIA officer to defect to the USSR was arrested in Sweden and the US requested extradition. Sweden refused and let him go, because espionage is a 'political crime'. Do note that the President at the Time - Bush Senior - was Vice president at the time of the defection (85) and was a former CIA director. To say Bush had an interest in the case was an understatement.
And Assange knows this. In fact in his press conference to announce he was applying for Swedish residency in the summer of 2010 (just days before the first alleged sexual assault) he specifically mentioned that the inability of the US to extradite him from Sweden for 'political crimes' was a major factor in his decision to move there.
Funny how he conveniently forgot that bit on his website touting his Swedish extradition to the US fantasies...
Re: What will really happen
"Neglecting Assange's concern that he will be "Extraordinarily Rendered" or simply have an "unfortunate accident" between any two points of your plan."
Yeah, only downside is that he voluntarily ran to the Uk. No-one who ever fears extradition to the US would ever go to the UK, certainly not a non-UK citizen, because of the 'express extradition treaty'. It ONLY makes sense if you look at it as an Australian looking to leave Sweden immediately (that night) for a country he can stay in for more than 30 days.
He then sat in the UK for 600+ days (618 I think) in a known spot most of the time, with a well publicized daily walk down a predictable path to a rural police station at the same time every day. If you're afraid of 'rendition' or 'accidents', you don't do this.
His decision to run came just 2 days after a final ruling about the Swedish EAW was handed down. At that point US extradition was impossible, he knew that (in fact when he went to Sweden, he made a public note that they have a honest judiciary, a free press, and a ban on extraditing to the US for political crimes with history to back it up (in 1992 they refused to extradite the *ONLY* CIA officer to ever defect to the USSR - Edward Hoawrd defected via finland 5 years earlier, escaping arrest in the US - letting him go freely. That was a US citizen indicted on espionage charges, with a President who'd not only been vice president when the defection happened, but was a former head of the CIA)
The whole 'US wants him' story is a fantasy, with nothing to substantiate it except Assange's own claims, and lots to destroy the narrative, including Assange's own actions and statements.
first off, a lot of the more recent 'scoops' have been comeplete 'nothingburgers'. The DNC leaks told very little that anyone who bothered to learn how the system works and is designed to work didn't already know. They whipped it up into a frenzy of 'great revelation' though.
There have been other times when the content could have been partially redacted to obscure Personally Identifyable info, and still gotten the message across - because he's lost so many people who do the actual work, they don't have time to do that any more, not and keep up a race to dump as much nonsense and spin it as news, because people catch on it's another storm ina teacup.
And if you think Assange's personal issues were a detraction from the core mission of Wikileaks, you're not alone. He should have stepped back from Wikileaks, and focused on his problems, while letting wikileaks carry on (since he does very little work himself, except for press releases and management). He chose to not do that, DELIBERATELY.
Why? Well, because his entire defense rests on 'but I'm Wikileaks, and I'm awesome, and they're trying to shut wikileaks down'. Kinda glosses over the fact that now they're not so much a whistleblower, as the document version of a moneylaunderer for people who want documents of dubious public interest published. His entire justification for his embassy run is 'the yanks want me cos wikileaks', he's the one thats taking wikileaks and distracting it with Assange's problematic personal activities. Thats the only way they can distract from them having nothing, and very little credibility left.
Right, and more importantly, Sweden does not extradite to the US for political-based offenses. In the 90s they refused to extradite the one and only CIA officer to defect to the USSR; they were the second most popular destination for Vietnam draft dodgers too. Assange knows this, he made a point to highlight it when he had the press release about him applying for residency there, along with something about the courts being very impartial and fair...
He also didn't go to the embassy until 2 days after the Supreme court's final ruling, which gave him 3 weeks until extradition, apararantly, then (and only then) did he realise that there was such a thing as a US extradition, despite him having been in the UK for 600+ days at that point, and that with the SCOTUK final verdict, any US extradition request would have been put to the back of the queue until the Swedish situation was dealt with.
Of course, anyone fearing US extradition wouldn't come to the UK anyway, not with the express extradition treaty. There's only one reason he'd have come to the UK, and thats after his lawyer was informed he would be arrested the next day at questioning, he needed to get out of the country for a period. Other Schengen countries wouldn't do, too much cooperation and he had less than a month of time left.Australia was too late, he'd missed any flights that day, and he'd be vulnerable in the air on the aircraft for a long time. Most other countries would require a visa, which left the UK as the only close, easy to access country with no visa requirements and the ability to stay over a month (as an Australian citizen he can enter without a visa and stay for 180 days, long enough he thought for this to blow over)
And there's still no indictment, and never has been from the US, and everyone else investigated in that grand jury (the people that did the work while he wrote press releases) have visited the US without a problem since at least 2013 (which was when I was invited to have dinner with one of them in NYC)
As for the breakdown, could it have been this - http://ktetch.co.uk/2017/01/assange-painted-into-corner-with-manning-boasting/ I'm not a lawyer, but I have done a LOT of research into this over the years, and I've had a lot of favourable feedback from those who have covered this extensively and who have worked with Assange in the past.
Special 301 is a special kind of joke
the special 301 report is one that has one point and one point only. It's to push other countries for stronger laws. It's not about good laws, or valid laws, and it's certainly not about national soverignty, or about other countries misusing such laws to the detriment of American citizens and/or companies.
It's an MPAA/RIAA/BSA talking point report only. Nothing more. The only comments the USTR will listen to or pay any attention to when compiling it, are those that ask for stronger laws in other countries, and you don't even need any sort of supporting evidence for that claim.
As an objective or substantive report, it's utterly useless. It is quite literally an executive branch office shilling for industry lobby groups, and nothing more.
Re: Used to work with one of the robot wars competitors
Really? They're only 220lb (100kg) at most - the weight of a moderately heavy person.
Unless you were talking about one of the house bots, which were about 400lb (except killalot which ended up around 1600lbs)
Re: @ Andrew Norton
I never get downvoted, but that's because all my posts go straight into moderation, and then get 'rejected' it seems (I've even had one approved, then the next day it was rejected)
BTW, as someone who was on the show in question, i can say that while it was the stated name of the points, in reality it was fantasy. The producers decided the winners (often ahead of time) then edited the matches to suit. There was even once instance where they edited two matches that took place 2 weeks apart into one. And one really amusing and notable instance where they'd made the deals about merchandising&appearance deals about who was going to win, only for it to be COMPLETELY the other way, and so they had to make up a new rule to disqualify the winner and get the one they wanted to win to win.
There's a reason it was listed as 'childrens entertainment show' rather than 'gameshow',and that was it. Which is why I took my participation to the US events, which were open competitions, and didn't have an arena which quite literally had the structural rigidity and protection of a telephone box.
Re: TLDR - properly.
We're talking about the same James Watt that held back steam engine development for 20 years because of his patent on the steam engine?
Re: very fair and balanced
Least they didn't go "full Prenda", and call the EFF a terrorist group https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130421/21241622795/angry-prenda-is-angry.shtml (disclosure, I'm on the defense team on this case)
This is an area I've studied for a while, and I don't mean 'poked around on Google for the last few months in my spare time'.
At the time Napster came out, I was working for my uncle's record company in the Greater London area, as a copyright enforcer (part time, basically keeping my ears open for his songs at places and making sure the likes of PRS were crediting his songs, as well as looking for performers selling their own versions out of a bag), and so I remember trying to push him towards MP3's. He resisted, didn't 'get' why anyone would be interested, especially because of the lower sound quality. He 'got' technology (he was also big into Steel, used to supply Toyota with much of their steel in the 80s) but didn't see it as anything but a fad. His contemporaries, however, tended to have a bigger problem. Control.
As a small label, he was 'left out' of much of the stuff. He was never told which stores would count for chart sales that week for instance, and he'd get last-minute notice of 'music industry' events, which meant he never had the ability to even change things in the industry, because it was always a fait accompli.
The music industry is, and has been for many decades, about 'control'. from the 50s on, music bosses understood that they could shape the population through music, make trends, break them, even spawn movements. It's hard to relinquish that sort of control. It becomes somewhat of a god complex. So when you see yourself as 'masters of culture', it's incredibly hard to disabuse yourself of that, and recognise that your time has passed, and you're now just selling a digital commodity, and your overall place isn't what it was. They're also afraid that any kind of acknowledgement of that, will devalue their prestige in the eyes of others, even though record bosses aren't the mythical creatures of wonder they believe themselves to be, and haven't been considered such for decades.
Happens somewhat in TV and movies now as well. A year or two later I was working on a TV show in the US for a Viacom channel. I was the only non-US crew member (based in Liverpool) and since it was a competition, part of my role was to sell it to people in the UK to get them to take part. I worked for the competition, which was televised by the channel, produced by a 3rd party production company. The issues I had just getting clearances to play episodes of the show to interested gatherings was incredible, because I wasn't a Viacom employee, and so was not under THEIR control, despite my only purpose being to promote the show and make the next season even better.
And it's not that uncommon a story in general. When the 08 recession happened and a lot of well-to-do middle class people lost their jobs, many people carried on as before, trying to keep up the veneer, and project an aura of 'no change', eating through their savings, and then loading themselves up in debt, just so people won't think times have changed and everything's all good.
But as anyone in a stormy area knows, trees die and rot from the inside out, and look strong and healthy until they're blown over, causing massive damage, because they rot from the inside out. We have no 'tree surgeons' to clear out the dead wood in the content market however.
Re: Somebody tell the police
You wouldn't believe the number of people that have told me 'but it's up see CR or EE or <other TLD>, even on the TF pieces in question which specifically state the opposite.
Doesn't help when most 'news orgs' don't bother to do any kind of checking and mislead people.
And even the isohunt.to (NOT affiliated at all with Gary Fung or the old ISOhunt site) version has amusing screwups, like the audio of my annual panel discussions on law, technology, and the internet (this year we had the EFF as lead guests, last year Chris Soghoian of the ACLU, and in 2012, Bruce Schneier), which are classified as 'adult'. (The only panels we don't record are the adult ones). No real danger of the torrents dying though, they're all on Mininova as well (yes, it still exists)
This past week of ultracrepidarianism about torrent sites has just about driven me crazy though.
Andrew "K`Tetch" Norton
Torrentfreak community manager
Ta, did a 15th anniversary panel with some of the builders (including Grant Imhara) back at the end of August, and it brought back a lot of memories.
There should be a writeup of it at Servo, and a video on Youtube soon.
well, I did an event (Sci fi con) in the Imperial hotel in 2000 (in fact, 14 years ago this coming weekend)
Not only were hte hotel rooms badly cleaned, their facility rooms were not set up - they hadn't bothered. they 'lost' some of our event reservations (so Dave [Vader] Prowse had to get a room at the hotel next door), and to cap it off, the hotel staff started stealing from the [locked] dealers room overnight.
We even changed the A1 standee sign on an easle at the front door to say 'welcome to the Imperial Hotel, prepare to be robbed'.
Oh and my old mate Mike Sheard (RIP mate) said 'did the staff all go to Grange Hill?' before turning to Dave and saying 'you should choke the Manager, he makes me look like a competent admiral'.
No wonder it stopped being used for party conferences. (and I was doubly irritated at having to stay up the full 72 hours of the event, having JUST flown back from two weeks of 20 hour shifts filming BattleBots in Vegas for Comedy Central - just meaning driving to Blackpool from Gatwick stopping home in Liverpool just long enough to swap suitcases)
Re: UK isn't so brilliant
You give 4 examples that were just like where I used to live in the US. I had a choice of two providers when I moved in there in 2006 - hughsnet satellite internet ($200/month for 8Mbit) or AT&T DSL ($55/month for 6/0.5Mbit DSL)
When I moved out in the summer (partly because Nominet had revealed my home address, and harassment from JHammond supporters was starting) my choices were... exactly the same, at the same price. Oh, except you could also get Verizon LTE service for the last 12 months, it was only $50/2Gig of data....
It was a comcast area, the whole county was, but Comcast hadn't bothered to lay a single wire in the county (a metro Atlanta county, with a significant film industry presence). In 07 AT&T techs told me they were going to upgrade their systems to fiber for U-verse, they had the fiber waiting and just waiting for the dig permits.
Then comcast announced they weren't going to lay anything, but weren't going to give up their 'franchise', so AT&T never had to bother, so they didn't. The only difference was they stopped calling it broadband in 2010, because even the top tier package (which I had) didn't meet FCC minimum standards for broadband (4/1 Mbit)
Now I've moved, I've got two choices. Charter [cable], and Windstream [DSL]. My price is a bit lower, and my speed is a bit better, but it's still slow compared to everyone else for the money -$45 for 60/4Mbit cable.
And that's because there's no real competition here, AT ALL
Re: About recording calls.
"This call may be recorded" - it can be viewed that that is granting permission, in that you MAY do that.
And if they're recording the calls, they can't object to you doing it.
That's the long and short of it (had a fun time in Federal court last year listening to two lawyers argue on that).
Forgot the other half of the report
You didn't mention that while it was for the "Digital citizens Alliance" (a nice astroturfing group) the other company involved (and who wrote the report) is none other than 'NetNames' (who share equal billing with DCA). for those that don't know, NetNames is more of a corporate oriented version of Web Sheriff, and describe themselves as "Leaders in online brand protection and domain name strategy, assisting global brands to Search-Find-Stop brand abuse online."
The 'findings 'then are totally predictable. Also wouldn't surprise me if this report had a little backdoor funding from PIPCU, as their last report basically justified the extra-judicial actions of PIPCU.