The Myth of May 18

It’s disappointing to see AssangeDAO’s official Twitter account intimating a false deadline by which activists must “Keep the momentum and take action! There is not much time left until May 18th. Keep fighting until Assange has his freedom!”


The significance of May 18 was misconstrued by Amnesty International, which posted on April 20, “The case will now be sent to UK Home Secretary Priti Patel, who will decide whether or not to certify the US [extradition] request by 18 May.”

That same day, The New York Times correctly reported that Assange’s legal team has until May 18 to make submissions to Patel before her decision, and an AP/Reuters story published by ABC News (Australia), confirmed: “His lawyers have four weeks to make submissions to Ms. Patel.”

Obviously, Patel will need several weeks to consider those submissions. A ruling should not be expected until June at the earliest. It’s unclear to me what effect pro-Assange activism, either before or after May 18, will have on Patel’s decision. (Do we really suppose she pays attention to such things?) But it’s wrong to promote May 18 as a deadline for anything other than formal submissions by Julian’s lawyers.

But yes - as I thought the decision was also going to be May 18th and it’s other organisations apart from Amnesty too. Loads of journos from the last court decision onwards…URGENCY and ATTENTION should be drawn to the case.

It would not surprise me though if she already had her statement pre-written. The HC judges made it clear that the relationship with the US is more important than a man’s life. That’s why a judicial review is in order IMO.

1 Like

@PMA please excuse my impertinence, but I get the impression from AssangeDAO Discord that you control the official AssangeDAO Twitter account. If so, perhaps I ought to have tagged you in this thread. In any case, I wonder if it is necessary to keep secret the AssangeDAO handles of those who tweet on behalf of AssangeDAO, which is of course a website dedicated to one of the 21st-century’s greatest advocates of transparency. Please, can you offer any insight into this?

  • I don’t “control it”, I been helping and doing most of the tweets in the last weeks
  • Discord have a #socialmedia channel for members to recommend tweets
  • Zylo, Gabriel and E also have access and not sure who else.

we need proper define the team, work-tasks and goals.

1 Like

@PMA thanks for your reply! It’s surprising, though, that you are uncertain who has access to AssangeDAO Twitter. The first step to teamwork is determining who is on the team.

I’m not an admin, I’m a member that is trying to help. I only can tweet via TweetDeck and don’t have access to the DAO account. @Zylo gives the access so he should be the Twitter admin and know who exactly have access.

And yeah, its about time do define exactly who is the team, split functions and responsibilities, set goals. Finish governance, vote on paying some members so they can dedicate more time to the DAO, etc etc etc … there is a lot that need to be done, hopefully now with funds in the treasury things can move faster and some initiates like the Award can start moving forward.


@PMA thanks again. However, I hope that before paying members to move AssangeDAO forward, an appeal can be made for volunteers to step up to the task. The problem is that will require willingness from those now in control to relinquish at least some of their authority to enable volunteers to function effectively.

yes, paying members is far the road and a lot more need to be done and set before… and yeah we need who have the admin and authority to lead and/or give members autonomy and to take over some of the tasks and decisions, i’m trying everything i can to move things forward but my “power” is super limited (and my time in this current setup)… anyway now that the treasury have funds, i hope that the original core team wakes up and move the DAO forward.

but i do think we should pay a project leader that can overview the DAO, delegate the teams, etc.
I propose that we pay @Zylo (if he wants and have time) for it!

1 Like

Only if people are fully vetted. That means a thorough backgrounder by the family IMO.

Thanks PMA for providing feedback even though you are not Admin - where are the Admin members and who are they? In fact I would be happier if the family brought in people who they know and trust by recruiting them via traditional methods.

Update. On 16 May 2022, AssangeDAO Twitter linked to, which asserts: “Julian Assange’s defence is providing its final arguments to Priti Patel on May 17th. Anytime after this date up to May 31st she has to make a decision whether or not to extradite Julian Assange to the United States.” So Patel has a window of 14 days in which to decide Julian’s fate.


Its quite likely she’s already made the decision. :sob:

@rave Patel is duty bound to at least consider the submissions of Assange’s lawyers before making up her mind. Of course, the overwhelming majority of #FreeAssange supporters are convinced that she, along with every other official of the UK government who’s ever had anything to do with Assange, is not only corrupt but indescribably evil. Naturally that goes double for every official of the U.S. government who’s ever had anything to do with Assange. So your cynicism is no doubt widely shared by AssangeDAO members.

She will need to explain why press freedom and humanitarian rights groups submissions are all wrong if she chooses to extradite. She is duty bound to do that.

According to Barron’s, citing a report by Agence France Presse (AFP), “Assange’s lawyers appeared to have met a [May 18, 2022] deadline to make representations to [Priti Patel], and could also potentially launch further appeals on other points in the case.” Anyone expecting a resolution anytime soon is sure to be disappointed.

Both sides will appeal depending upon Priti Patel’s decision. Her decision to not extradite would be most surprising despite all the efforts of legal, media, humanitarian groups, politicians and the public worldwide.

On 17 May 2022, Stella Assange tweeted: “Defence submissions to Home Secretary @pritipatel have just been filed.” Stella QT’d a 10-minute video seemingly dating from late February–early March 2022 that does not mention Patel or the April 2022 referral to her of the U.S. request for Julian’s extradition. Does anyone know why Assange’s legal team filed their submissions a day before the deadline? I also wonder why those submissions, having been duly filed, were not published for all the world to read. Perhaps under the terms granted by Patel, submissions must remain confidential. Yet I cannot imagine why that would be. I suppose submissions might include personal medical information that Julian’s lawyers want Patel to consider, but surely those parts could be redacted to protect his privacy. And god knows there’s already been an abundance of such details presented in public court records; indeed his health concerns were a significant part of the case on appeal. There’s more going on here than meets the eye.

Update. On 1 June 2022, The Sydney Morning Herald quoted a spokeswoman for Priti Patel as saying, “The Home Secretary is required to make a decision [on extraditing Assange] within two months of the day the case is sent.” Since the court did so on 20 April, we can now surmise that Patel may deliberate through Sunday, 19 June. Given this timeframe, the most likely date for announcement of her decision is Monday, 20 June.

However, also on 1 June, WikiLeaks’ verified Twitter account tweeted (with trademark typo [wether]) that Patel’s decision was “expected shortly.” If WikiLeaks has inside knowledge of a proclamation forthcoming sooner than three weeks from today, it suggests that Patel’s spokeswoman is misleading Australia’s newspaper of record. It’s hard to imagine what her purpose might be.

WL expected shortly

1 Like

Are you referring to Assange appealing to the UK ‘High Court’ if Patel orders the extradition?

This is (apparently) what a former-UK-ambassador thinks is the next step (search ‘Home Secretary’ for the relevant paragraphs)

Stella Assange tweeted an article from an Iraq War whistleblower that a) quotes this article and b) recommends that website in general for explaining Julian’s judicial options.

I’m interested in what all the legal steps are. I assume our more public friends don’t reference the entire process often, so as not to lose public interest, and that makes sense to me; but I wish I knew where to learn about the entire process, and I bet others do too. Stella doesn’t directly say that that site is such a resource, but maybe it is? Any feedback would be sweet.

1 Like

I use this - was designed by a lawyer who had worked for Julian Assange - was originally shared by Jeremie Zimmerman on Twitter ) - and it has always has been accurate for the legal steps.