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

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.

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