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

[David Barrett]

On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 2:50 PM Karl <gmkarl at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm sorry, I'm not intentionally ignoring it, I just don't know which you
>> are referring to.  Please repeat the point so I don't miss it.  Thanks!
>>
>
> Did you get the email at this link containing a reference to the bombing
> of MOVE?
> https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2021-June/088677.html
>

Yes, in the past 250 years, our nation -- which was founded on slavery,
fought countless wars over the globe, is the only country to use nuclear
arms in battle, etc, etc -- has done terrible things.  There have probably
been *billions* of individual court cases, and maybe a trillion
interactions between law enforcement and the general public.  Yes, yes, a
thousand times yes, there are countless examples of horrible atrocities to
point to and select out.

But that would be to cherrypick the evidence to suit your needs.  The
overwhelming number of court cases are completely boring, mundane, and
non-controversial.  We are choosing to select the most politically charged,
complicated cases and shine a light on them -- and yes, if you are
suspected, accusted, and convicted of the most deadly, damaging, or
complicated cases the world has ever seen, yes, the system is not optimized
for those.

But to claim that those are somehow representative of the normal course of
justice is not reasonable.

I remember recently going on a date with a woman that spent her whole life
trying to move to the US, talking in horrifying detail of the vastly,
vastly more common problems experienced elsewhere in the world *on a daily,
mundane basis*.  It's easy to criticize the US for imperfection, or lament
that the real world hasn't lived up to your dreams.  But what is the point?

The US exists.  You can either change that, through revolution, or improve
it through voting.  Those are your choices.  It doesn't matter if you like
them.  That's just physics; if you don't like it, find a new dimension.



> To repeat my point, I'm merely saying the US has done precisely nothing to
>> punish Assange yet: he hasn't been on US soil, in US
>>
>
> Stundin article?  Did you see the Stundin article?
>

About one of the witnesses maybe falsifying testimony?  Sounds great, I
can't wait for Assange's lawyer to mention that, if he eventually shows up
in court.


>
> courts, or really touched by the US at all.  The US has *attempted* to
>> extradite him for trial, but so far has been unsuccessful.  Assange has
>> been accused of breaking a variety of laws in different countries (sexual
>> abuse, immigration violations, etc) , and has done
>>
>
> It is obvious that those are not the accusations that governments are
> concerned with.
>

So to confirm, you think that Sweden doesn't care about sexual assault?  Or
are you saying that you are so personally convinced of Assange's innocence
that you have no interest in seeing him go to trial for it -- his accusers
are beneath your notice and have no right to justice?  Or are you saying
that it's ok that he sexually assaulted others, because of the
righteousness of his cause?  Saying "it's obvious" doesn't make it so.
There seems truly nothing at all obvious about Assange's potential
crimes... precisely because he has refused to stand trial.

It's entirely possible that Assange is a small footnote in history that is
being magnified out of proportion, who the grinding, faceless, mundane
bureaucracy of justice is just trying to run through the system.  He's just
a guy, who is refusing to show up in court for a variety of cases, whose
life will be defined not for what information he supposedly brought to
life, but how he spent his entire life in hiding from justice for his
actions -- actions that only a tiny, shrinking set of people can even
remember.

He's not some grand hero, he's just a dude who is refusing to show up in
court to answer for his actions.


his best to run from all of them -- going so far as effectively imprisoning
>> himself in an embassy for nearly a decade -- all to avoid showing up
>> in *any* court for *any* of these.
>>
>
> So, the Stundin article reported that the USA had actually gone to great
> efforts to _frame_ Assange.  This was very difficult to learn.  It was the
> person doing it who shared it, and they may have put themselves at great
> risk.
>
> If it is a government that is trying to frame you, is attending court in
> their country a good idea?
>

Who is "the government"?  It's literally a million separate employees.
That's why there are separation of powers; the court system has literally
never spoken to this witness, *because there has never been an actual
trial*.  Furthermore, the article makes it sound like the witness lied, not
that the evidence was fabricated or the government was trying to frame
anyone.  Regardless, unless you truly believe that Stundin is somehow an
absolute arbiter of truth -- and their reporting is so pristine that it
should be taken as gospel without any formal process -- then you should
agree with me that this is great reporting, that will be made available to
the defense.



>  To a very large degree, nearly all of Assange's suffering has been
>> entirely self-imposed hardships caused by running from the long arm of the
>> law.
>>
>
> ==> People run because they are in danger <==
>
> Let me find and paste a quote for you.
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7316471/
>
> The ongoing torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange
>
> On Feb 17, 2020, Doctors for Assange demanded an end to the torture and
> medical neglect of Julian Assange.[1] Yet no responsible authority has
> acted. Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel,
> Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and two medical experts
> visited Mr Assange in prison in May, 2019, concluding that his treatment
> constituted psychological torture, a form of torture aimed at destroying
> the personality of an individual.[2] The situation has deteriorated since
> then, with continued abuses of Mr Assange's fundamental rights and the
> medical risks posed by COVID-19.
>

Just to confirm, he is in a UK prison right now -- one that is *denying
extradition to the US*, right?  Can you elaborate on how this is the US's
fault?  The US would gladly take Assange into prison here if Assange would
allow it, and then I think you would have a more credible complaint against
the US court system.

Additionally, just to confirm, is this the torture you are referring to
that you feel justifies him running from the law (including isolating
himself for 7 years in an embassy), and that you feel is so shocking that
he should (presumably -- I'm not sure what you are proposing) be let free
without any trial?

"He has been held in a bulletproof enclosure unable to fully hear
proceedings and denied meetings with his lawyers. He was strip-searched,
handcuffed 11 times, moved to five different holding cells, and had
privileged client–lawyer communications seized."

I don't know how many times a typical person is handcuffed, but 11 doesn't
really sound like a lot to me.  And yes, being unable to hear well does
sound bad, they should definitely improve the audio.  ... but torture?  You
feel this treatment, as bad as it is, is so bad as to justify (presumably)
just letting him off the hook without any trial for any of his accused
crimes?


"This of course rarely happens" -- are you sure?  There's something like
>> 400 thousand federal trials every year; and *millions* of state trials.
>> Are you saying that it is *rare* for people to get justice?  My sense is
>> that the
>>
>
> Well, I'm mostly exposed to political convictions.  Everyone I know who
> has gone behind bars (aside from the people I met when I was behind them
> myself) was in there politically.  (At my trial I was released, but I was
> influenced to accept a needless guilty-plea for charges unrelated to why I
> was jailed.)
>
> Political convictions can go reasonably nicely or severely inhumanly
> poorly.
>

So just to confirm, everyone you've met that was convicted, told you they
were wrongly convicted?  And you feel they are the most reliable source of
truth, and are so reliable that on your first hand experience and the word
of your fellow convicts, you are rejecting the justice of the entire
government?


I'd love to learn more about this; I'm not familiar with mediation as an
>> alternative to trial for criminal cases (I thought that was only an option
>> for civil suits).  Can you link me to some good resources you recommend to
>> read more?  Thanks!
>>
>
> I likely conflated civil and criminal.  But if you can figure out who your
> accuser is, you can mediate with them to resolve the reason they're
> accusing you (or alternatively so that you turn yourself in), humanly.
>

That's not true.  Civil suits are disagreements between people, but no law
was broken -- this is why you can mediate them, because "justice" is "the
two parties have found an agreement out of court".  There is no equivalent
of that for criminal law.  When you break a law, punishment is determined
by the court system.

-david

>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 15768 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20210703/7b6b9ee7/attachment.txt>