The UC Global case has stalled. From this article written early 2021. Should the Assange DAO direct a journalist/legal team to further investigate? The stalling in the UC Global case has weakened Assange’s UK extradition case. I consider that new information on the UC Global surveillance is critical. Can it emerge in time?
Six months after Judge De la Mata requested judicial cooperation from US authorities, asking them for identifying information about the IPs that accessed UC Global’s servers, the US justice system has yet to respond.
**the United Kingdom has also failed to comply with De la Mata’s request to take statements from the lawyers who were spied on while working with Assange. **
FOIA Documents shed light on Assange Case.
Again investigative journalist, Stefania Maurizi (in fact on the same day that the UK Supreme Court denied Assange’s appeal petition) has received negative feedback to her FOIA investigation re UK documents concerning the Swedish case. She has been fighting for almost 7 years, in UK, US, Sweden, Australia to extract key documents from all four four governments. Should the AssangeDAO support her cause in some measure?
Should the AssangeDAO consider addressing libel cases - to demand false “Russian asset” claims and “Trump asset claims” be dealt with legally?
UK Judicial Review
Satisfied with how this case is going? Tired of numerous anomalies? Tired of UK Judges seeming to kowtow to the delay in presentation of new indictments, new evidence after the evidentiary hearing? Denial of the politics involved in no bail granted. Find this all remarkably lopsided? What can be done? Can the Assange DAO do something - that will not harm Julian? There is URGENCY now.
Recommend funds to hire lobbyist to seek US pardon
Isn’t that what the $50 million dollars was for? We could file FOIA requests and sue for noncompliance, but considering that we do not have a legal entity, nor a lawyer on payroll to represent us, the court will not hear a lawsuit by a “unincorporated association”, so each person would have to file their own FOIA’s and litigate their own claims.
This is not going to work because Julian Assange is a public figure, and the litigant would have to be Julian Assange, and he would have to prove “actual malice”, in addition to the defendant making a provably false assertion instead of an opinion, which is a nearly impossible bar in most circumstances.
The general reason why damages are given in libel cases, is that the person who was harmed does not have a platform to communicate the truth, but in the case of a public figure it is more presumed that the person has a platform to express their side of the truth.
I understood that the Assange DAO can make decisions about how the legal fund is best spent. Are you saying the the DAO should stand by and not consider how their “donation” and the accumulated funds are spent?
I disagree - there is an Advisory Council/Consensus Unit that will look at all ideas forthcoming by the AssangeDAO community - otherwise what is the point of ideas discussion?
You say “The 17000 ETH is out of our control” - Disagree. WE all know that is the fund preserved to fight his legal case. The Assange DAO community has the democratic right to discuss how that is spent. Obviously the UK/US case takes priority (Birnberg Peirce & Partners will and already are being paid) but the matters I’ve listed above ARE already detrimentally impacting on this legal case. I’d call them loose ends.