I hope you can participate in the reorganization of Dao together! It's about the survival of justice!

Well, if we want to keep to that mission, then lets just get directly to it, and hire an attorney to file a pretrial writ of habeas corpus, and stop dicking around with other nonsense like airdropping NFTs

This event on world press freedom day has been sponsored by donators and the fund of this DAO has not been touched. Many people over the world expressed their urge for Julian’s freedom on World Press Freedom Day and spreaded not only their urge, but also the name of this DAO. Therefore, it was not nonsense at all. It was not the best idea ever of the marketing and donators, but at least we did something on this important date (especially if you consider that ultra-short amount of time). Stella and Wikileaks shared it too, just like many other supporters. Every step, that supports the freedom of Julian, is worth it.

I read your habea corpus idea already many times and it’s not my fault if nobody shows interest in it. I doubt that repeating it in almost every thread makes it better.

Yeah, because the majority of people aren’t lawyers, they just want to be involved in low effort tasks, which have no real impact on actually achieving the stated purpose of the DAO.

So, are you a lawyer? I am somehow sure that Julian’s lawyers considered your “high effort” idea…

I regularly engage in civil rights litigation, including habeas corpus petitions, freedom of speech, and discrimination, this has already been noted in previous threads

But please, its very illuminating that instead of attacking the idea or the facts, you want to attack the person.

I didn’t attack you or your idea. I also didn’t read everything you wrote on the forum. Because you mentioned that people don’t involve in your idea because they aren’t lawyers, I got curious, if you are one.
I also wrote many ideas and didn’t get support unfortunately…

The reason he did not reply directly to your question “Are you a lawyer?” is because he is not. He is a convicted criminal who acts on his own initiative as a jailhouse lawyer.

That is precisely the sort of person whom AssangeDAO should disavow.

Sure, and it was a “jailhouse lawyer” who got the supreme court to demand that my state use “unanimous jury verdicts”. I’m also a ML engineer, but again you’re resorting to Ad Hominem instead of addressing the ideas or the facts.

There is a old lawyer saying

“If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts; if you have the law on your side, argue the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, attack the person”

And that is relevant how, exactly, to advising AssangeDAO on legal matters?


Since the beginning of this community, this id has been fudding wildly, attacking the community; and often speaking in an irrational, emotional style.
recommend to ignore it

Surely, you must be able to describe what exactly is FUD, or “irrational” instead of resorting to ad-hominem attacks. Please enlighten us.

Or is this just going to be a replay @EWillHelpYou claiming that Me and Amir are intelligence community assets, and other ad hominem attacks meant to deflect any criticism.

Because I am specifically working on large language models based on legal text, and I have previously used such artificial intelligence systems, to provide answers to legal questions, when people don’t believe that I am telling the truth.

I don’t think that AI/ML are a silver bullet, but in a lot of ways it can remove the bias from the judicial system, by acting as an additional “check and balance” in addition to speeding up the litigation process

for example:

See the controversy with Netflix over the movie Cuties, which the State of Texas alleges is child pornography.

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

Since the State of Texas has not accused Julian Assange of trafficking in child pornography, your expertise is not needed here.

Since the State of Texas has not accused Julian Assange of trafficking in child pornography, your
expertise is not needed here.

You should exercise your reading skills, because the question is about first amendment standing to bring a habeas corpus on behalf of another person.

In this instance Netflix filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus, on behalf of the director and producer of the films, who are not netflix employees, since obviously you cant put a corporation in jail.

Netflix has standing to file its pretrial petition even though Netflix, anincorporeal person, is incapable of being arrested.

Well, then, since you have First Amendment standing, you should bring a habeas corpus action on behalf of Julian Assange in the relevant jurisdiction. For someone with your skills as an ML engineer/jailhouse lawyer, how hard can it be?

It would be optimal to do so as “AssangeDAO” which would invite less questions from the court, about potential conflicts of interest between Assange and the person submitting the petition, because in theory AssangeDAO can demonstrate a greater “injury” which is needed to invoke Article III jurisdiction, alternatively Wikileaks might also be a good petitioner in this instance.

I don’t understand. What potential conflicts of interest might exist between Assange and you as petitioner?

I suggest to continue the discussion where it belongs to:


Regarding the other points here:

  • Your past is not my business. I will try to not be biased and my focus is Julian only.

  • The author Harari wrote that AI will be more accurate with law issues in future than humans, because they have immediate and accurate access to information. They have no human characteristics though and ideally technology should “support” and not replace the apparatus. He referred to the future though…

  • I’m not familiar with this topic properly because it sounds complex to me, but if you continue with that, I’ll soon print T-Shirts with Habeas Corpus (show me the body) on it, because I read these terms of you already uncountable times since Day 1 here. Probably the competence in ML and Law and your description makes it hard to understand for everybody. That’s probably the reason nobody involves in it, or you really didn’t consider certain aspects, which Julian’s lawyers did. I don’t know.

1 Like

I don’t understand. What potential conflicts of interest might exist between Assange and you as petitioner?

That can be any number of things such as, willingness of the petitioner to get involved with multi-year litigation, whether they want to bring the same legal theories, or for example whether Assange would prefer to take a plea deal reducing the amount of government work required, in exchange for leniency

in my opnion, Amir & @EWillHelpYou are all contributors who hope that the community will develop well, and expect more builders to help the DAO.
In fact, I am not familiar with you, and my correction may not be accurate.
This topic can also continue to be discussed in the community, but please let us continue to focus on development and minimize disagreement.