On Sunday, December 1, 2019, 05:22:16 PM PST, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:


On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 05:19:47PM -0500, John Young wrote:


One could say this is actually Virgil Griffith v. The Federal
Reserve.

[snip]

As you may recall, I previously looked at the indictment(s) of Julian Assange, and specifically for any indication that the statutes he allegedly violated had an indication of "extraterritoriality" included in those statutes.  The Supreme Court has upheld the principle that non-extraterritoriality (statute not applicable to actions outside the US) is presumed unless the statute explicitly references the extraterritoriality of that statute.

Here is the contents of 50 U.S.C. 1705:

50 U.S. Code § 1705.Penalties

prev | next
(a)Unlawful acts

It shall be unlawful for a person to violate, attempt to violate, conspire to violate, or cause a violation of any license, order, regulation, or prohibition issued under this chapter.

(b)Civil penaltyA civil penalty may be imposed on any person who commits an unlawful act described in subsection (a) in an amount not to exceed the greater of—
(1)
$250,000; or
(2)
an amount that is twice the amount of the transaction that is the basis of the violation with respect to which the penalty is imposed.
(c)Criminal penalty

A person who willfully commits, willfully attempts to commit, or willfully conspires to commit, or aids or abets in the commission of, an unlawful act described in subsection (a) shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.


(Pub. L. 95–223, title II, § 206, Dec. 28, 1977, 91 Stat. 1628; Pub. L. 102–393, title VI, § 629, Oct. 6, 1992, 106 Stat. 1773; Pub. L. 102–396, title IX, § 9155, Oct. 6, 1992, 106 Stat. 1943; Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title XIV, § 1422, Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2725; Pub. L. 109–177, title IV, § 402, Mar. 9, 2006, 120 Stat. 243; Pub. L. 110–96, § 2(a), Oct. 16, 2007, 121 Stat. 1011.)


[end of quote]



I cannot see any indication that the statute 50 U.S.C. 1705 is supposed to be extraterritorial:   That is is intended, by the statute, to apply to actions taken outside the United States or its territories.    But this is why I really want to read a lawyer's take on extraterritoriality.

---------


And I did, again, a Google search for   ' "julian assange" "extraterritorial", time limited since Sept 1, 2019:

However, looking at 4 pages of search results, I do not find any indication that any articles have addressed the issue of extraterritorial application of US laws,

However, the recent case of Sacoolas, the woman who drove and killed a British citizen, might "wake up" British Justice (presuming such still exists) and cause it to do 'turnabout is fair play' and refuse extradition of Julian Assange.   If Sacoolas won't be extradited, or given an immunity waiver, the British might just decide to come down on the side of "no quid pro no quo".   No tit for tat.   Maybe.   If we are lucky.

                       Jim Bell