On Sunday, December 1, 2019, 05:22:16 PM PST, Zenaan Harkness wrote: On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 05:19:47PM -0500, John Young wrote:

Virgil Griffith v USG

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1222646/download

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 - U.S. Code - Notes 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

On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 07:12:31AM +0000, jim bell wrote:

On Sunday, December 1, 2019, 05:22:16 PM PST, Zenaan Harkness wrote: On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 05:19:47PM -0500, John Young wrote:

...

Virgil Griffith v USG

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1222646/download

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

- U.S. Code - Notes 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

Notwithstanding the ultimate outcome, at this stage "a message has been sent" to all dissidents, "alt" journalists, and leakers, that the empire will dish out its horrible consequences for actions which undermine the empire. A possible resolution of sorts could be financial compensation to Assange, which in NZ starts at $100K/yr, and in Aus starts at ~$1,000/day for extended stays https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi356 So 8 yrs * 365 * $1,000 ~= $3 million. And that's just the std base rate. Add in exemplary damages (due to e.g. the "sending a message", the total and utter power imbalance between Assange and the USA, etc) and 10s of millions is in order. The dignity of the West demands such compensation ultimately be paid to Julian Assange. Failure to fix this is the ongoing indictment of the evil infesting the West. Such failure is prima facie demonstration of the ultimate power in the West being "the swamp" or any other name you wish to give to this power, which on a completely random note, controls the US military. There is this one little troll tail which wags the USA dog. Creata mundi Создай свой мир Crea tu mundo Δημιουργήστε τον κόσμο σας Crea o teu mundo Erschaffe deine Welt اصنع عالمك Sortu zure mundua Crea el teu món 创造你的世界 Luo maailma Créez votre monde अपनी दुनिया बनाएं Búðu til þinn heim Készítsd el a világod Ciptakan dunia Anda Crea il tuo mondo あなたの世界を作成 당신의 세계를 창조하십시오 Создадете го вашиот свет Waihangahia to ao Lag din verden دنیای خود را ایجاد کنید Stwórz swój świat Crie o seu mundo ਆਪਣੀ ਦੁਨੀਆ ਬਣਾਓ Creează-ți lumea Створите свој свет Vytvorte si svet Skapa din värld สร้างโลกของคุณ Dünyanızı yaratın O'zingizning dunyoingizni yarating Tạo thế giới của bạn Fatu lou lalolagi Create your world