Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment - Stundin

Karl gmkarl at
Thu Jul 1 00:12:06 PDT 2021

David, what are you are saying doesn't seem quite rational to me.  Are you
on the same page?  Did you get my longer email that you didn't reply to?

On Wed, Jun 30, 2021, 7:16 PM David Barrett <dbarrett at> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 3:56 PM Karl <gmkarl at> wrote:
>> 2. The UK is currently holding him (and has been for 2 years) while
>>> Assange appeals the extradition request
>> ThIs doesn't appear clear to me.  The article says the USA has appealed
>> the extradition request, after a judge denied it.
>> The US prosecutors lodged an appeal on 15 January.[460]
>> <> A spokesman
>> for the U.S. Department of Justice confirmed in mid-February 2021 that it
>> would continue the appeal under the new Biden administration.[458
>> <>
> Oh, that's a great clarification, thank you.  Regardless, unless you are
> suggesting that the UK should offer no appeals process, I think it makes
> sense to let the UK courts follow its process.

Why is it you are saying this?  Does anyone have a way to change their

So he's by every legal and semantic definition in the UK prison by choice.
>>> He can allow himself to be extradited to the US at any time.
>> He is in the UK as opposed to the US.  The charges levied at him could
>> imprison him longer than his lifespan in the US, so he probably doesn't
>> think that extradition would free or benefit him or anything.
> Just like Chelsea Manning.  Who went free after 7 years, and was given
> credit for all her time in prison pre-trial.

==> is that normal? <== move 9?  Is 7 years just if the person was trying
to aid and protect everyone with all their heart?

Now, it's true that he would prefer not to be in any prison.  But it feels
>>> like the US has a reasonable case against him that should be evaluated by a
>>> court (and the UK agrees).
>> Caps because your statement is ignoring the thread topic.  I'm wondering
>> if you're forgetting it.
> The courts determine what is true and false evidence; that hasn't happened
> yet.  If you are

This is only true within the confines of a trial.  Do you believe juries
define physical truth?

so confident it's easily proven as false, why wouldn't Assange's attorney
> be able to easily show that?  The reality is, there is likely a

Because the prosecutor has had 10 years to form a case involving massive
funding and documents provided by the resources of secret services, while
assange is in prison unable to collect data, or unaware of the threat?

wide range of evidence against him -- some false, some true, and there is a
> process to figure out which is which.  A process that the US is trying to
> follow, but that is being blocked -- currently by the UK.  And that's
> fine.  If the UK denies his extradition even after appeal, great.  The
> system works.  If the UK does not deny his extradition, and he goes to
> trial in the US, then great.  The system works.

We're arguing a lot here and clearly come from different places.  I don't
see how we can ever know for sure whether the ruling of a court is
correct.  It's surprising to me that it's a point of argument.

It's frustrating to disagree over our different conclusions.  I suspect
we've had different experiences that lead to them.  Has the court system
really protected you?

I feel really scared when I read this Sturdin story, but also really full
of hope, because my clear perception was that things like this happen a
lot, and it rarely reaches the news.  Among activism, people are often
getting "entrapped" in various real and unreal ways, ending up in prison
because somebody put effort into framing them.

Our more caring, selfless people, have been ending up in prison =(

Unless you feel there is literally no law that he could reasonably be said
>>> to have broken --
>> such as aiding and abetting a fugitive by helping Snowden hide his tracks
>>> while escaping, or collaborating with a convicted felon (Chelsea Manning)
>>> in publishing state secrets?  I'm sure you would think that he has a
>>> reasonable defense against those, and if so, he should do great in court.
>>> But do you believe the court has truly no reasonable case to even hear?
> Are you saying we should be certain to prosecute anyone who violates any
>> law?  Does this include people working for governments?
> Yes, I would support prosecuting anyone who breaks the law,
> including/especially those in the government.  But whether or not someone
> else is tried is irrelevant to whether Assange should be tried.

Well, the people involved in falsifying evidence could likely reveal a lot
of information helpful to justice around Assange.  Doing this seems illegal
to me.  Is it illegal to coerce somebody to lie on the stand?  Which case
should be brought to court first, to find justice?

> -david
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 11382 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list