>My theory concerning the relentless pursuit of Assange is that the ultimate court outcomes are not the main object. The main object is ongoing and very public punishment, certainly including unending incarceration and intimidation, for daring to air the US' dirty laundry.
Well, I DEMAND they 'play by the rules', in the way they refused to do so in my case.
Jim Bell
> -----------------------------------------------jim bell <
jdb10987@yahoo.com>To:CypherPunks
> Apr 29 at 5:31 PM
> From:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/download> 15(B) to intentionally access a computer, without authorization and exceeding authorized access, to obtain information from a department and agency of the United States in furtherance of a criminal act in violation of the laws of the United States, that is, a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 641, 793(c), and 793(e). (In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 1030(a)(l), 1030(a)(2), 1030(c)(2)(B)(ii).)
>
> [end of partial quote]
> There is a principle of American law, upheld by the Supreme Court, that a Federal law is only supposed to be considered of "extraterritorial" application (applies outside the boundaries of United States territory) if the Congress specifically intended that application, and was signified by including such language within the law itself.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction
>
> "In Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 2010, the Supreme Court held that in interpreting a statute, the "presumption against extraterritoriality" is absolute unless the text of the statute explicitly says otherwise."
>
> "
US Supreme Court Continues to Limit Extraterritorial Application of US Laws | Insights | Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP>
>
>
RJR Nabisco and the Runaway Canon> >From that:
> "The Supreme Court threw out the lawsuit after invoking the presumption against extraterritoriality. That canon of statutory interpretation instructs judges to assume “that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”[8] In applying the presumption in RJR Nabisco, however, a majority of four Justices[9] rejected multiple indications that Congress intended RICO’s private right of action to extend abroad[10] while raising the bar on what Congress must do to make its extraterritorial expectations clear.[11]" [end of quote]
>
> Understanding the presumption against extraterritoriality:
https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1170&context=bjil>
>
>
> Very interesting:
Some Observations on the Extradition of Julian Assange> >From that:"THE RULE OF DUAL CRIMINALITY: Even if extradition is sought only under the computer intrusion indictment, it will still need to meet the test of dual criminality, found in Article 2, which provides that "An offense shall be an extraditable offense if the conduct on which the offense is based is punishable under the laws in both States." Although computer hacking is no doubt also a crime in the U.K., there is a further wrinkle of territoriality, because Assange's alleged offense was committed outside the United States. Another section of Article 2 provides:If the offense has been committed outside the territory of the Requesting State, extradition shall be granted in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty if the laws in the Requested State provide for the punishment of such conduct committed outside its territory in similar circumstances. If the laws in the Requested State do not provide for the punishment of such conduct committed outside of its territory in similar circumstances, the executive authority of the Requested State, in its discretion, may grant extradition provided that all other requirements of this Treaty are met."
> Unlike the U.S., however, Britain apparently takes a strict view of territorial jurisdiction. According to The New York Times, Britain has already denied a U.S. extradition request for computer intrusion, on the grounds that the offense was committed on British soil and would therefore have to be tried in the U.K.
> [end of quote]
>
> 18 U.S.C. 641 does not appear to explicitly have an extraterritoriality reference.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/641>
> 18 U.S.C. 793(c), nor the whole 793, does not appear to explicitly have an extraterritoriality reference.
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information>
>
> 18 U.S.C. 371 does not appear to explicitly have an extraterritoriality reference.
18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States>
>
>
>
> 18 U.S.C. 1030 does not appear to explicitly have an extraterritoriality reference. 18 U.S. Code § 1030 - Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
>
>
> Jim Bell
>
>