A system to mass file Habeas Corpus petitions to free assange under First Amendment doctrine

I am inquiring about sending a legitimate proposal, that would require the allocation of filing fees to the court, and the generation of a Habeas Corpus petitions for Julian Assange. myself and my friends are experts in machine learning and law, however I have never been part of a DAO. I propose that it costs approximately $10 per habeas corpus 28 USC 2241 petition, for us to make a system to file and monitor habeas corpus petitions and the documents on the court docket called PACER, not including attorney time or developer time. I believe that under the First Amendment standing doctrine, that third parties have the right to file a writ of habeas corpus, based on the violation rights to receive the information from the journalist, and the infringement of those listener rights by the government. I have provided a screenshot of the answer that GPT-3 artificial intelligence believes to be true, when asked the question about this being feasible.

I have a very good knowledge of First Amendment law, and can create the petition and memorandum of law, and essentially create a form for people to fill in the rest of their details. I would then have to send them to the courthouse on their behalf, with their individual return address, and then monitor the docket and upload the documents in pacer to the Recap archive, and send email copies to the person who filed it.

Either from this stage, it would rely on the vigilance of people to coordinate, but ideally I would create a set of Machine Learning embeddings in the documents, and try to sort the responses from the court by similarity into buckets, to determine if there are ones that need to be reviewed by a lawyer I.E. that the judge has issued the writ and demanded that the government respond.

4 Likes

The thing is that only the United States of America and United Kingdom’s citizens would be legitimated to file a writ of habeas corpus such as the one proposed in here. The first ones, due to the fact of being citizens from the extradite-petitioner country; the latter, because they are citizens (or subjects) of the country which jurisdiction is being enacted to put Julian Assange on trial, and also retain him in prison under inhumane conditions. But what would you expect from war allies, if what Julian has been exposing is, precisely, the truth about war crimes and assassinations produced by these particular allies (and others)? I think that everybody in the entire World is being put on trial, because if extradition succeeds, and death sentence is imposed to Julian Assange, we would all be waiving our human right of freedom of speech. I fear that in these times of neo-fascism, many millions would perish because of that nefarious outcome.

We need broader legitimacy grounds. The Hague International Crimes Court would be a better stance, IMO. Would that be a feasible question to be asked through your awesome AI?

1 Like

The Suspension Clause of the US Constitution, prevents the country from denying individuals the right to file a writ of habeas corpus. The most powerful claims are that they didn’t have jurisdiction under the 6th amendment, and that the actions stated do not constitute an offense under the 1st amendment.

“the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law

1 Like

This is the question posed to GPT-3

Generate the detailed legal requirements to petition the international court of justice, to consider whether a journalist is being held as a political prisoner, in violation of the international convention on civil and political rights.

The requirements to petition the International Court of Justice (ICJ) vary depending on the particular case. However, in general, the petitioner must have a legal interest in the case, and must be able to demonstrate that they have exhausted all available domestic remedies.

In the case of a political prisoner, the petitioner would need to demonstrate that the journalist is being held in violation of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The petitioner would also need to provide evidence of the journalist’s arrest, detention, and treatment in custody.

1 Like

With regards to possible US Habeas Grounds:

  1. The court lacks jurisdiction of the cause, because the facts stated in the indictment do not constitute an offense, under the 1st Amendment to the US constitution.
  2. The court lacks jurisdiction, because the statute does not apply extraterritorially, unless congress specifically states so
  3. The court lacks jurisdiction, because the statute does not apply extraterritorially, consistent with the laws of nations.
  4. The court lacks jurisdiction, because a person who is publishing material to the public, cannot be said to targeting persons in the jurisdiction of the United States to satisfy the “intended effects” test, consistent with fair play and equal justice that Assange intended to be subject to the rules of that sovereign.
  5. The venue is improper under the 6th amendment, which provides that defendants are to be tried in the state and the district where the crime occurred, rather than where the effects of the crime are felt, such consistent with number 5.
  6. That the Espionage Act of 1917 is unlawful under the first amendment, because it is a content based restriction of speech, a hecklers veto of speech, a prior restraint of speech through a license, void for vaugeness, and void under previous supreme court decisional law.

see also Special Analysis of the May 2019 Superseding Indictment of Julian Assange - The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

1 Like

I am also bumping this because after the initial vote on snapshot:
Snapshot

This is the only proposal which conforms to the core mission.

However the specific allegations made by a Writ of Habeas Corpus, relies upon the necessity of hiring an attorney to represent the DAO, and also making sure that the claims presented, are in accordance with the veto of the Assange Family.

It is for that reason that I have not spent the time to write a Writ of Habeas Corpus, and the supporting documents, because I do not see any need to invest the time until I have been assured that the proposal can go forward.

I would also like to point out, that some person had contacted me, and had done a poor job of drafting a lawsuit, and asked me for advice here. I am able to give you information about the law, but I am not allowed to compose documents for you to submit to the court, I have in the past however filed my own Habeas Corpus petitions for others, who were arrested for violating a law by exercising his First Amendment right to free speech, these are also in the thread below.

See e.g. Auction won! What's next for AssangeDAO? - #24 by bullheimer

I was reading the court records here: USA -v- Julian Assange | Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

I have a set of notes for future legal research topics below:

Vaugeness and venue, would a spy in germany asking an american for secrets, have been prosecuted for espionage, research case law.

Case history of the espionage act, history of espionage in the first amendment context when it was originally enshrined in the constitution.

The scope of the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, includes the right to petition government officials to disobey government policies, which violate substantial human rights. Such a petition cannot be said to make a person a co-conspirator in the breach of their public duty. No specific performance tied to an unlawful act of government, espionage act intrinsically tied to breach of contract or official duty.

History of the first amendment at the time of ratification with regard to the same.

It is alleged that he used rainbow tools for the hack. Rainbow tools is simply a giant lookup table

Incitement vs mere advocacy under the 1st amendment.

It is alleged that bradley manning used a wget script, but no mention of where the script came from is mentioned.

Intelligence Identities Protection Act, and which in certain circumstances criminalised the intentional public disclosure of the names of intelligence agents and sources, was consistent with First Amendment rights. Research case law.

Vindictive prosecution, viewpoint discrimination, comparison with others.

Mulller report details wikileaks

Privacy law history, agents in privity

Unenumerated right to truth, right to access documents, and the first amendment, natural rights.

Recent computer fraud and abuse act case law changes

Evolving standards of decency, constitutional rights, with regards to 8th amendment also adoptable to the 1st amendment, because many more people are sharing information, and have different standards of privacy and transparency, to take on the task of self governance vs the past.

This probably came out evidence noted in Manning’s trial. Forensic Expert: Manning's Computer Had 10K Cables, Downloading Scripts | WIRED

Im wondering if this suggestion overlaps the research work we’re not privy to which would already be started by JAs US legal defence team run by Barry Pollack?

I do not know how much research work has already been done. I did spend some time the other day looking at the lawsuit between the Texas government and the Nextflix Corporation regarding the movie cuties. Netflix filed a pretrial writ of habeass corpus, this seems to confirm that wikileaks could do the same thing. Here is an excerpt from their pretrial habeas corpus

Netflix has standing to file its pretrial petition even though Netflix, anincorporeal person, is incapable of being arrested. Under Article 11 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, pretrial habeas relief should issue “without delay,” Tex. Code Crim. P. art. 11.15, especially when “the applicant alleges that the statute under which [the applicant] is prosecuted is unconstitutional on its face.” Ex parte Perry, 483 S.W.3d 884, 902–03 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). Article 11 provides pre-trial habeas relief to “any person” the State “restrains.” Tex. Code Crim. Pro. art. 11.01 (emphasis added). Netflix is a “person” within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure because the word “person” encompasses corporations like Netflix. See, e.g., Tex. Pen. Code § 1.07(38) (“‘Person’ means an individual or a corporation[.]”). The charges pending against Netflix are a “restraint” under Article 11. Ex parte Taylor, No. 03-18-00481-CR, 2018 WL 5945935, at *5 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 14, 2018, no pet.) (emphasis added). See generally George E. Dix & John M. Schmolesky, 43 Texas Practice: Criminal Practice and Procedure § 35:4 (3d ed. 2016) (“In the pretrial context, the existence of pending charges is generally sufficient to show restraint.”) (emphasis added). Article 11.01 thus entitles Netflix to prompt relief on its facial challenge to Section 43.262

I paid $7.50 to buy these documents on Pacer.gov

I think it is ESSENTIAL idea to uncover all court dockets in the US on this case.

For what it’s worth, this petition (from the Petitions page) of half a million people, and its updates, (at least implicitly) ask Australian officials to submit a writ of habeas corpus. I’m not sure what we would add to that*, and my suspicion is that we’d be extra useful to Assange in other ways.

*My ignorance largely stems from not being a lawyer. But, then again, I’m not sure why Assange would take law advice from the DAO - he already has a legal team.

1 Like