Skip to main content

It isn't official until someone writes about it, correct? Well here's that article. https://consortiumnews.com/2022/06/17/home-secretary-signs-assange-extradition-order/

Assange's legal team is holding a press conference right now on the decision. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6Lcoi3Mr3Q

Patel's decision.

1 min read

Priti patel made her decision. She signed the US extradition request for Julian Assange. She was dragging this out for so long. She could've done it when she first got the case!!! She could've definitely done it on May 31st, when we all thought she would. Instead, she waited until the actual deadline. Her decision isn't surprising, it was expected. It is however extremely difficult for everyone who's been following Julian Assange, and Wikileaks for so long. This includes me. Wikileaks says the decision will be appealed though, so we at least have that to face before he even comes over here. This is most likely another year of legal proceedings in the UK. That's if leave to appeal is granted. No, it isn't over just yet. I guess I need to fast and pray a lot more, we definitely won one round!!

The UK Home secretary could announce her decision to sign Julian Assange's extradition order today, well tonight here. Today was the deadline for the defense to file their submissions. Secretary Patel has until the 31st to make her decision.

Second letter to Home Secritary Patel.

2 min read

Well, now that she actually has the case, I thought I would write one more email. This is exactly what I did, kind of. I used a form letter.. Here it is.

Dear Secretary Patel Madam Secretary, I wrote you a while back, to urge you to reject the US extradition order. Now that you actually have the case, I want to respectfully ask you to do so again. If you decide to send him here, Julian, who has two young kids, could face a 175 year prison sentence. Simply for the fact that he received and published truthful information that revealed US war crimes. Judge Vanessa Baraitser previously ruled "it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America". She made this decision for mental health reasons. Amnesty International states that “Were Julian Assange to be extradited or subjected to any other transfer to the USA, Britain would be in breach of its obligations under international law.” Human Rights Watch published an article saying, “The only thing standing between an Assange prosecution and a major threat to global media freedom is Britain. It is urgent that it defend the principles at risk.” The NUJ has stated that the “US charges against Assange pose a huge threat, one that could criminalize the critical work of investigative journalists & their ability to protect their sources”. Julian will not survive extradition to the United States. He had a stroke back in October, on the first day of the High Court appeal hearing. he's also a major risk for suicide, and says that if an order is given for his extradition, he would kill himself. The UK is required under its international obligations to stop the extradition. Article 4 of the UK-US extradition treaty must be enforced, which prohibits extradition for political offences. The decision to either Free Assange, and send him home to his family, or to extradite him rests with you. You can, and you must save Julian Assange's life. I'm asking you to do something that won't soon be forgotten by the world. I firmly believe that you will stand on the right side of history, if you decide to reject the extradition order, and free Julian Assange, sending him home to his family, so that he can receive medical treatment. Sincerely Hope Williamson

Here are speeches from an event in DC today marking the 3rd anniversary of Julian Assange's arrest. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQBF33F8cKE

I don't always agree with Democracy Now, but I do agree with Chris Hedges's position on Julian Assange. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqNNlGBThCM

A witness who was supposed to be at Julian Assange's wedding, but was banned by the prison for ridiculous reasons, wrote an epic post about what it was like to be there, from the bride's perspective. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/03/free-enduring-love/

Julian Assange and Stella Morris married today. Here's the stream from the Belmarsh vigil and celebration that was held. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2puQc3S8-AI

My letter to Home Secretary Priti Patel.

6 min read

Dear Home Secretary Patel, My name is Hope Williamson, I'm writing to you to ask you to please deny the US extradition request for Julian Assange. I'm a US citizen myself, I know what my country is capable of. I've watched since 9/11 as we tortured detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and CIA black sites. I have read documents and reports that tell the horrific stories. I was following Chelsea then Bradley Manning's case, as she was held in solitary and on special administrative measures. She was also on prevention of injury watch back then. This is something that amounted to crewel and degrading treatment, according to the UN special rapporteur on torture. I do not believe for one second any assurances a prosecutor gives. They are worthless, and you should regard them as such. Let's take Daniel Hale's case, for instance. He's currently being held in one of our communication management units. Not supermax , but a step down, if you could call it that. He was supposed to be transferred to Federal Medical Center Butner in North Carolina to receive care for post traumatic stress disorder, or at least that was the assurance given, if he pled guilty. I would urge you to look at this article by Kevin Gosztola: [https://thedissenter.org/imprisoning-drone-whistleblower-in-cmu-jeopardize-us-appeal-assange-extradi...] the Assange assurances have major loopholes. If he says anything wrong, they can put him in supermax or apply special administrative measures. If he's convicted they can transfer him to a CMU. Assurances like this don't mean anything at all. Not only that, but they were given in the middle of the case. Most of the time, diplomatic assurances are given at the very beginning of the extradition process. Permit me to discuss the case itself. Madam Secretary, if you or I were charged with anything here in the US, (outside the Eastern district of Virginia,) and if our private conversations with doctors and lawyers were surveilled for years on end, without a warrant or court order. The case would be immediately dismissed. This actually happened in Daniel Ellsberg's case. The case was ultimately dismissed, because of a break-in at his psychiatrist's office, and evidence of illegal wire tapping. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg#Trial_and_dismissal] In the Eastern District of Virginia, as it says in that particular article, there isn't an opportunity for a public interest defense. If you're charged under the espionage act, you can't get up on the stand and say, here's why I did it. That applied to Manning during his case, and it would apply to Assange during his. Let me also mention something about the Judge assigned to the Assange case here in the US. His name is Claude Hilton, and he has a reputation over here already. He presided over the Lavabit case back in 2013. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit] You probably aren't aware of Lavabit or what that is or was, but I can give you a fairly quick explanation. Lavabit provided email services for about 400000 people before it was shut down by it's founder back in August of 2013. It also happened to be Edward Snowden's email service. The FBI targeted it's founder, Ladar Levison. They asked for private encryption keys. These are the keys that you and I use when we look at a shopping site, when we go to an https:// secure site. Levison initially refused to comply with the order to turn over private SSL keys, then turned them over on paper. He was held in contempt by Hilton, and fined $10000. The case went up to an appellate court and was lost. Rand Paul mentioned Lavabit on the Senate floor on May 20th, 2015, when he was speaking about the expiration of the Patriot act: [https://irp.fas.org/congress/2015_cr/paul-patriot.html] " Edward Snowden was using an encrypted email server, and the company that was housing him--that was specifically the genre of their business. They had a business that was encrypted because some people want to be private for a lot of different reasons, many of them legitimate--business, legal, personal reasons. But, anyway, when they came to get Edward Snowden's email, they didn't ask just to get his email; they said they wanted the encryption keys for the entire business." Hilton also served on the ultra-secret FISA, (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,) court.) As someone who followed the Manning trial, I also know that the Assange trial would never be allowed to be open to the public. This would effectively deny him a fair trial. Everyone deserves to have a public, non-secret trial. They basically close off the courtroom, it effectively becomes an SCIF, (sensitive compartmented information facility,) while the trial is taking place. A select few reporters are allowed in, but definitely not the number of press that have covered the case in the past. If they have to have a classified session, the press has to leave. I would like to also point out why District Judge Baraitser denied the extradition request in the first place. Julian Assange is a major risk for suicide. We know this, because evidence was presented back in the 2020 hearings at Westminster, Not only that, but it's a confirmed fact that he had a stroke back in October during the high court hearing. There definitely is not adequate health care at the Alexandria detention center where he would be held, It's true that if you have a stroke you're at risk for having another, more major one. these things have to be monitored and overseen by a doctor. Assange is also about to marry his fiance Stella Morris on Wednesday. The fact that he would be unable to have contact visits with her and his children here, I believe would put him at further risk for Suicide. Secretary Patel, you have the chance to make history. You have the chance to do something that would cause you to be well known and remembered throughout the generations, to create a legacy that would last much longer than those of us living today. I'm respectfully asking that before you make a decision in this case, you take the time to consider all the submissions before you. In the end, I'm asking that you deny the US extradition request, and release Julian Assange from Belmarsh Prison, so that he can return to his family, and recover from his health issues. Sincerely, Hope Williamson P. S. I do not require a response.

I've spent the last couple days drafting a letter to UK Home Secretary Preti Patel, asking her to deny the US extradition request for Julian Assange. It's kind of long so I'll post it in a post.

https://stellamoris.substack.com/p/a-system-that-allows-this-is-a-system?s=rStella Morris is Julian Assange's soon to be wife. This is her statement regarding the UK supreme court's recent decision not to hear his appeal.

This should've been able to have taken place years ago, but at last Julian Assange and Stella Morris are getting Married inside Belmarsh. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10608323/WikiLeaks-founder-Julian-Assange-marry-fiancee-Ste...

This is an epic history of Julian Assange, by Mary Kostakidis, who I was credentialed with back in October for the last major hearing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBkQtXDN4_s

Well I missed this hearing this morning, bad me!! I knew it was coming up, just didn't know it was today. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/01/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-o...

I'm on break from the public internet for a while. I just had to post this though. Didn't even know it was happing until I saw the email for it.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/julian-assange-loses-appeal-british
The court said they were going to rule in January. Usually with appeal courts they take a long time to rule, so I thought that would be the case.

Thoughts on the hearing yesterday.

5 min read

I just have to start this out by saying that I wasn't instructed propperly on how to access the conference. I was given a link, in which I was told not to share with anyone, and given some other instructions not to make any sort of recordings etc, that I still don't know if I can publish in their entirety. I wasn't told that I absolutely had to have a webcam set up, therefore I thought it was like the webinar feature of Zoom. In fact I discussed strategies with a blind friend of mine on how I would go about this before the hearing. We discussed me starting out not with any sort of headset connected, however, I've seen past tweets that the audio on these things can be really bad. If I needed my headset to help me understand things better, I could plug it in, but the one I have has a microphone, and I really didn't know if anyone else would hear my screen reader in the background. I said that I could just shut it down during the arguments if the audio got really bad, and I needed the headset to help deal with that. I did that exact thing on Wednesday morning. I connected a half hour ahead of time, and waited for the hearing to start. However, when it started, and I could tell this by live tweets, I didn't hear anything. I plugged in a headset. I disconnected and reconnected. I even got my friend out of bed, to see if he could offer any ideas. He couldn't, and I proceeded to install Skype. It mentioned something about Skype and/or teams in the instructions, so I thought if I could use Skype to access it, maybe it would work. Unfortunately it still didn't work. I did try with my phone, and in retrospect I think what happened was that I was waiting. By then, 2 hours had gone by, and so I decided to just catch up with Twitter. The next day I tried with my phone to connect and it worked emmediately! However I couldn't hear well enough to keep the phone on my desk so I could do other things at the same time. I had to keep it either on my ear, or on my shoulder, kind of like we do when we're trying to do something else on a phone call. The minute I took the phone off the charger, the signal dropped. I think that has something to do with my personal hotspot being active, that happened twice. I learned my lesson after that!!
I got to listen to Edward Fitzgerald and Mark Summers argue for Julian Assange. I've followed the case for 11 years, and this is the very first time I've gotten to actually listen to them argue. Fitzgerald actually had to say that someone on the autism spectrum could have a girlfriend, because the day before the prosecutor, James Lewis, who sounds like he's about 150 years old, by the way, said that people with ASD don't have relationships and children.. Fitzgerald had the pleasure of arguing the ground in which the prosecution is trying to discredit DR. Michael Copelman's testimony from last year. This is because he failed to disclose Assange's relationship with his partner, who we now know to be Stella Morris, and the two children they have together in his December 2019 report. The question is whether Copelman misled District Judge Baraitser, although she says she wasn't misled, because she understood who Assange's partner was, although at the time we didn't. The other grounds Fitzgerald argued had to do with mental health, and whether extradition would be oppressive. A lot was said about suicide risk, and the ability to resist the impulse to take one's own life, but this is a key argument, because this is what Baraitser based her ruling on. The other grounds were argued by Mark Summers. They were about diplomatic assurances that were given after Judge Baraitser made her ruling. I just have to say that these things are worthless. They've been breached in many cases. In this portion of the argument, and in the earlier portion the Yahoo news article This one, was brought up. At the end one of the judges said "you've given us much to think about." My friend said "if God were talking to them, they would've said the same thing." I'll just end with this. It was extremely easy to get a credential!! I didn't have to provide any information, or send anything to the court, other than a name and email address. I didn't give them my legal name, I didn't want everyone to start calling me that. No one calls me that anyway these days besides family and doctors. If they would've asked me, I would've given it to them, however I would've asked them not to put it on the credential. I'm not sure why more people didn't apply for one, since they were given out so freely!!

I got inside the hearing with my phone this morning. I'm watching as Mark Summer's defence attorney for Julian Assange, brings up this article. https://news.yahoo.com/kidnapping-assassination-and-a-london-shoot-out-inside-the-ci-as-secret-war-p...

While I wait for a reply to my follow-up request from the court, I'm just hoping they're being slow, and it will come tonight at some point. This is a good breakdown of the case. https://thedissenter.org/a-guide-to-the-us-government-appeal-in-the-assange-extradition-case/

OK, so a couple weeks ago, when I filed my request for public remote access to the appeal hearings. I was told that one day before the hearing, I'd need to contact the court again for further details. Well, we're one day out now. I mean it's 10:00 PM here and 6:00 in the morning there in London. I need to contact them in the next hour or so, if I want to get to bed anytime soon. However, I'm sitting here, thinking what if they renege? I know, that's a strange thing to be thinking about at 10 something at night, when you're dealing with a headache, and you just want to get this done, so you can go to sleep. However, if they renege, I won't be able to watch the hearing, so I'm nervous about it.

I need help filing this application. I have no idea what to say lol. https://wiseupaction.info/2021/10/01/bear-witness-to-the-us-appeal-to-extradite-julian-assange/

The time I got an entire conference call lectured by a judge.

2 min read

I don't think I posted this here, but it's hilarious. At the beginning of last year, they did the Assange hearings by conference calls, instead of the video link system they use now for the press, and now the public.

Somehow the number was made public, I think it was on accident. The person who did it took it down right after the hearing. I happened to dial into the call, and they kept telling us to mute ourselves, but I wasn't sure if that was an option on the call or not, and I didn't want my phone to make any extra noise, so I didn't. My phone was planted in my ear because the lawyer's audio was fairly hard to hear. It was extremely hard to hear, actually. No one could hear what they were saying. I knew I was going to have to move my phone at some point because I was holding it against my ear so hard, that my ear was getting numb.

I thought I could just move it without activating VoiceOver, but no way. The thing goes off every time the phone moves. When I put it back on my ear on the other side, after a few seconds, the phone said, "screen dimmed." We were all promptly yelled at by Judge Baraitser.
Unfortunately in a rush to get into the call, I never did take down the conference phone number and code in time. I wasn't ever able to get back in. After the hearing was over, I tweeted to explain to everyone what happened.

Well I could've applied for a public credential at Julian 's preliminary appeal hearing tonight, that's if I didn't sleep through most of yesterday. Unfortunately I did, so my application would be untimely. I'll definitely do this next time. Although I can't attend in person.