On Thu, Jul 1, 2021, 1:01 PM David Barrett <[1]dbarrett@expensify.com>
   wrote:

   I think I've received all your emails, though I'll admit there's a lot
   going on so I might have missed something.

   You wouldn't know you hadn't received it if you didn't.  You reply to
   most of my emails.  Did you receive an email from me that you did not
   reply to, in which I referenced MOVE?

   I'm not trying to make a grand point, other than it's hard to criticize
   the justice department's treatment of Assange given that he has done
   everything in his power to avoid it.  Any perceived wrongs against him

   If it is illegal to try to avoid an appeal, it would be a separate
   crime.  If we were to punish people for unrelated crimes at trials,
   everyone would have their suffering mathematically squared.  That is
   definitely not the intent of the law.  The law defines the punishment
   for crimes, not the irritation of its enforcers, David.

   are at this point still entirely imagined -- it's entirely
   possible/probable that had he just showed up to court to defend himself
   from the start (as is the basic expectation of everyone in a modern
   society), he would be a perfectly free man by now.  Yes, he might

   Jullian Assange is not a United States citizen and is not held by their
   laws.  He was already imprisoned by another country when the
   extradition request was made.  A judge ruled against extradition due to
   medical needs.  Are you blaming Julian Assange for having medical
   needs?

   have been found guilty, and yes he might have served time.  But unless
   your attitude is "People I like should be above the law", then why is
   this a problem?
   Unless you are his lawyer or a judge, I feel like we need to step back
   and acknowledge that we literally don't know what's going on.  We don't
   have the resources to investigate, we haven't seen all the evidence, we
   haven't devoted the time to understand it, and we arguably aren't even
   qualified to assess any

   We would then want to be careful to include all possibilities, no?

   of this.  Anyone who supports justice and the rule of law -- which I
   believe *should* include everyone reading this (anyone who would
   self-identify as "I do not support justice, and I do not support the
   rule of law" is a whole different matter) -- should be frustrated with
   Assange for refusing to participate in our legal process.

   I do not believe that the government understands what is going on
   either, or is free to act justly on it when they do.  Refer to my
   previous relation regarding forensics norms that wipe the evidence
   before retrieving it.
   That doesn't necessarily mean justice or law are good or bad.  It means
   we need to participate in them if we want them to be good.

   And mind you, this truly has nothing to do with whether you think he is
   guilty or innocent, whether you think the laws are fair, whether you
   view him as a hero or a villain.  Your personal emotions toward him
   should have nothing whatsoever to do with your support of him following
   the legal process -- a process that despite its imperfections, is still
   one of the best in the world.

   This needs to be true of officials and enforcement workers far more
   than of me, right?
   We do have restorative justice processes all over the world.  People
   tend to appreciate them more than trial by jury.

   I think criticizing the US justice system for doing the very basics of
   its job (ie, trying to get someone to show up in court) -- when it
   literally hasn't even done anything yet -- is kind of off base.  Yes,
   let's make good laws.

   How has this been criticised?  Are you saying the evidence was
   falsified just to get him to show up in court?

     Yes, let's make sure those laws are properly interpreted and
   enforced.  But all of that *starts* with him showing up in court so we
   can all actually hear the charges and see the evidence for real, and
   see what our institutions actually do about it.  Running

   This of course rarely happens.  Trials are held half-privately and then
   people are locked up in prison and communications with them are
   censored.  By the time they come out they are totally different people.
   That is the situation right now.  Julian has no way to prepare for a
   trial fairly because he is imprisoned elsewhere.  Can the USA get him
   his writings so he can prepare a defense with his lawyers that is
   backed by evidence?
   Why are you blaming him for not showing up when a judge ruled for him
   not to?

   from the law makes for great Hollywood plots, but is hardly what we
   should be celebrating in the real world.

   Unless they are persecuted heros of course like Jesus was.
   Very differently and non-religiously, George Floyd would have been a
   lot better off on the run.

   Unless of course you have just given up on our nation entirely and
   think even attempting to enforce our laws is inherently unjust.  But at
   that point, you've taken such an extreme position, nothing less than
   revolution will satisfy you.

   We actually have restorative justice programs in many areas.  There are
   cities and states where an accused criminal can opt for mediation
   rather than punishment today, David.
   Other approaches do not necessarily mean revolution or anything.  But
   we also need to protect from persecution, people who dream of
   revolution and talk about it.  It is unjust and illegal to harm people
   for talking about their dreams.

References

   1. mailto:dbarrett@expensify.com