Petitions to Free Assange (Peticiones \ 請願書)

The conclusion, is obviously, that Assange is a liar, he said so himself.

He is the one who made the offer to begin with, then he blames Obama for accepting it.

What is your goal here?

Hasn’t it been made apparent, I file habeas corpus petitions for people who are engaged in free speech, because i went to prison for 5 years for exercising free speech. I don’t have to agree with white supremacists, or with manipulative liars, to do so. The first amendment is worth protecting, and these people will be used as the justification for removing it for everyone, otherwise we will become a totalitarian state.

Yesterday I was discussing with friends, whether to file an amicus brief against the police pension fund, that is suing to prevent Musk from buying Twitter for example. I literally predicted that this lawsuit would happen, before it was even filed with the court, because i know of the governments dirty tricks.

I’m not familiar with everything you mention here and I read many articles that presented wrong information about Julian. So, I would be careful, calling him a liar. I don’t want to speculate behind somebody’s back here… This thread by the way is for petitions and I doubt that it’s nice and inspiring for people that consider to sign these while you call Julian a liar… That’s why I stop here, going more off-topic.

it is not offtopic at all, this topic is a petition to stop Assange’s extradition, Assange already agreed to be extradited, and he broke that promise making him a liar. IMHO the time and money would be better spent on a pretrial writ of habeas corpus in the US courts, and I do not understand why this has not been done previously, considering the representations by Stella that the charges are frivolous, and it would make the extradition irrelevant.

Here is your thread for your habeas-corpus. This discussion belongs here in my opinion:

I assume you’re referring to this tweet: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/819630102787059713

If so, I’ll point out that several articles neglect to discuss the embedded link - asking the USA ‘Justice’ Department to clarify Assange’s status - because they are propaganda (obviously we can get information from them, but they are offensively biased). So I’d like to suggest that

  1. the text of the tweet may be deliberately provocative and easy-to-remember, for ease of public reading - but the tweet also asks the USA to give information relevant to JA’s freedom. Did they provide it? If not, this seems like honest communication: ‘I have asked you for this; I agree to that’.

  2. even if someone disagrees and considers this deceptive, it’s irrelevant: JA is talking to people who want to kill him to cover up war crimes! Would we shame someone for using deceit to stop a person beating another? This is similar, but much more severe: the USA deserves nobody’s honesty, least of all his.

  3. the USA claimed there was no trade here, and so the deal’s off anyway.

even if someone disagrees and considers this deceptive, it’s irrelevant: JA is talking to people who want to kill him to cover up war crimes! Would we shame someone for using deceit to stop a person beating another? This is similar, but much more severe: the USA deserves nobody’s honesty, least of all his.

Its not irrelevant to the courts. Its kind of hard to complain about the government doing something to you, which you had previously agreed to in the first place.

That is a valid point. On January 18, 2017, during the final press conference of his presidency, Barack Obama explained at length his rationale for commuting the sentence of Chelsea Manning. During the Q&A that followed, a reporter noted that “Julian Assange has now offered to come to the United States. Are you seeking that? And would he be charged or arrested if he came here?” To which the president replied, “I don’t pay a lot of attention to Mr. Assange’s tweets, so that wasn’t a consideration in this instance.” By declining Assange’s offer, Obama let Julian off the hook.

I find it curious that the huge change.org 700K signed petition - written in Australia by Australians in the English language - when it is linked gives a Spanish header???

@rave Do you mean this one? I loaded via Google Chrome and don’t see any Spanish.
Untitled

Yes I mean that one - it is the same as this - each time I link it - see what happens!!! This sucks.

I copied your link directly from here, pasted it into my Google Chrome browser, pressed Enter, and it came up English just like in my preceding screenshot. Must be a glitch at your end.

1 Like

Yes - a glitch to supress more uptake IMHO.

That’s very concerning. Let’s hope there’s some innocent technical explanation.

1 Like

IMO - even if the DAO cannot achieve more - it has already been a success since it has fulfilled its mission by raising a significant amount of money for Assange’s legal defence.

DAOs such as MoonDAO - they are larger and have gone through their teething problems. However what is their aim - to get some member into a space vehicle - well lucky that individual - but who else does that help on the planet? No one.

What I’d like to see now - is speedy signs of the legal action this DAO has helped pay for to commence - to prevent this extradition from the UK and to pay for lobbyists to get these charges dropped.

1 Like

Liar - not at all.

There were expressly two conditions stipulated by his lawyers which were not met though. It is explained in this article citing Barry Pollack, the US lawyer for Assange.

According to Barry Pollack and also in other interviews by Melinda Taylor - the offer was quite specific - a pardonfor Manning (not just a commutation which denied her a pension and information from the DOJ pertaining to Assange’s case. Refer the Barry Pollack letter and the Wikileaks tweet from that time period.

image

As we know there is quite a distinction between a full pardon and a commutation. We have seen that Manning was recently re imprisoned over her case and charged hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. Also on May 30, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denied Manning’s petition for grant of review of the decision of the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals. So Obama could have done more.

This article further explains how a commutation denied her of a future veterans affairs pension and other entitlement to (military) benefits, including gender-transition care at (military) medical treatment facilities. Chelsea Manning to lose transgender benefits with dishonorable discharge

Pardon - A person who is pardoned cannot be further punished for the forgiven offense.

No, you are a liar, if you try to ignore the dictionary definition of words. At no time was the word pardon or commutation ever used by wikileaks. That distinction is a complete fabrication which has no bearing upon the facts of what happened. At no point did Assange ever claim that he demanded gender transition care, or veterans pension, or any other benefits.

The precise offer that was made by Julian was honored by President Obama, and trying to argue the law with me will only result in me using an Artificial Intelligence as the “tie breaker”, demonstrating that you are objectively wrong under the doctrines of contract law and promissory estoppel

Moreover, you place yourself in the position of committing defamation if you continue to call me a liar, so you should retract your statements if you can not refute the points that I made.

You are truly delusional that somehow even $50 million dollars, would be enough to convince Pritti Patel to violate a treaty with the United States, and that this process is otherwise anything other than ministerial, and if I am not mistaken because I do not practice UK law, only subject to rejection by the royal prerogative. Moreover, the anglo legal system is famously based on “independence of the judiciary” and not subject to the influence of lobbyists, because we’re supposed to live by “rule of law and not by men”.

Moreover, if these issues are as frivolous as Ms Stella claims them to be, its very strange that she has not already filed a pretrial writ of habeas corpus to get the charges dismissed in US court, making this extradition hearing process moot. Even if she wanted to continue with this extradition, having done so would reduce the time that these specific issues will be going around the appellate courts, if or when Assange is extradited to the united states, and would reduce the amount of his incarceration while the USA tries to keep in imprisoned upon appeals.

Cough - re read it Endo in context.

There was no accusation YOU were lying - the words that I wrote pertained to Julian Assange not being a liar as alluded to elsewhere in the conversation - hence “Liar - not at all” my end.