9 ms·

In today's edition of the sham trial: Judge Baraitser ruled that there will be no closing speeches in the hearing. Furthermore, because the proceedings have be

In today's edition of the sham trial: Judge Baraitser ruled that there will be no closing speeches in the hearing. Furthermore, because the proceedings have been going on for too long, the defense is not allowed to submit new evidence proving the inhumane conditions Assange would be held in if extradited. Since the defense is also not allowed to cross examine Kromberg, who's written several affidavits which cross the border into perjury, they're somewhat fucked. More 'time saving' measurements, because apparently that's more important than having a fair and/or humane trial. Wait, I missed this gorgeous fucking bit of assholery: Baraitser heard arguments on whether the full medical records of Assange from the doctors and psychiatrists who had given evidence should be released to the media. Both defence and prosecution opposed release, but Baraitser kept referring to “open justice”. She will rule on this on Monday .

rory_isAdonk 6y ago
Random question, but are you a relatively strong supporter of Wikileaks? I only ask as I was looking into "Wikileaks Community"(I think was the term), a group of people who would do in depth articles on the documents the group releases, after the fact.
- jonathanstrange 6y ago
  That doesn't sound like a "random question" to me.
  - rory_isAdonk 6y ago
    It's just that I can find any trace of that sub-group of Wikileaks, I get its an organization that inherently benefits from a certain degree of secrecy. It just seemed if someone wanted to be involved that was a logically well separated means.
- AllegedAlec 6y ago
  I would not say I'm a strong supporter of Wikileaks, although I do believe their leaks have been critical in adjusting and making more realistic our views on the wars in Iraq et al, as well as exposing government overreach in the forms of extraordinary rendition, torture, and flagrant breaches of the laws of war. What bothers me most about this case is A: that America is doing this very much political hounding of a journalist becaues they were embarassed by them. B: the readiness of the UK to roll over and destroy its own justice system. First by having the judge be at the very least biased, but more likely having the judgement ready to extradite Assange. Secondly by having this public trial be very much private. First by limiting the public seats in the trial to less than a dozen and then also by excluding all NGOs and news sources who'd be critical of this sham. Lastly by the frankly horrendous treatment of Assange. Both by the conditions in which he's been kept in prison, putting him in a glass box so he can't hear the trial nor communicate with his legal team, but also by things like limiting the time he can spend with his legal team while awaiting the trial, to the point where the defense team wasn't sure they'd be able to do enough prep at all.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  I'm not OP but... I think there are so many reasons to call bullshit on this that are totally independent of whether I or you or anyone likes wiki leaks or Assaunge himself. This is about justice, the rule of law, press freedom and basic fairness long before its about whether anyone likes this particular defendant (let's face it, he's not as charismatic as say a dead fish).
  - rory_isAdonk 6y ago
    Yeah I doubt they are totally independent, I assume its just a subset in the org that doesnt get access to how the rest of the organization works to protect the rest of the organization. Just effectively coordinating hobby bloggers.
    - LatteLazy 6y ago
      That might well be true here. I actually think it's probably not simply because if it were, the US would have provided at least some evidence to try and get public opinion on side or further muddy the waters. But it also wouldn't surprise me, the Russians love useful idiots (who doesn't?). That said, Its irrelevant. We've been through this many times in world history. The answer to people publishing things that undermine a government position is to rethink the position. Not punish the person. Punish the person leaves the government unquestionable. And we know that is much much worse than any damage the truth can do because we're not trying to win some pissing context with Russia over who looks good. We're trying to maintain good policy.
feralimal 6y ago
I agree this is a sham trial. But why do you say so? You do not mean, as I think, that Julian Assange is simply an actor, and that the whole thing has been a charade rolled out by 3-letter agencies, from start to finish.
- AllegedAlec 6y ago
  > I agree this is a sham trial. But why do you say so? From all reporting I've read on it, also besides Murray's, it's been very clear that long before this trial has started the judgement to extradite Assange was already made. > You do not mean, as I think, that Julian Assange is simply an actor, and that the whole thing has been a charade rolled out by 3-letter agencies, from start to finish. I do not believe that Assange is an actor. What would the alphabet soup even gain by doing this whole circus?
  - feralimal 6y ago
    > What would the alphabet soup even gain by doing this whole circus? They manage thesis and anti-thesis, the mainstream and the opposition. This is to say they maintain total control over the story arc.
    - AllegedAlec 6y ago
      That doesn't answer the question. What do they gain from it? Because to me, this seems like a fairly blatant and rather hamfisted attempt to prosecute someone for inconveniencing them. That's not the sort of action a group in complete control would have to perform.
      - feralimal 6y ago
        I'll try to answer more clearly - to hell with the downvotes! Ok - if you were king of the world, would you prefer to be managing an outright challenge to your authority, or would you prefer to manage a convincing appearance of an outright challenge to your authority? Either way that challenge - Assange here - will take a lot of people's effort and energy. The people have the power but they are being managed. He becomes an idol to some of those people considered rabble rousers by the governors. (For the religious, in your mind (temple) you have accepted a false idol - while you believe it to be true you will die for that idol every day.) As a controlled opposition character, he may provide some truth - he has to be convincing - but he won't deliver. He is not really a challenge. If you have read 1984, he is 'Emmanuel Goldstein'. Its the same story as Snowden. These characters (if they are even real people and not pastiches or CGI) are controlled opposition. They are acting a role - its a performance. They are intended to draw the sting from genuine people's discomfort and distress over the way our society is being managed downhill into tyranny, to take their well intentioned energy, and to waste it, so that nothing is achieved. Governance is not just politics. It is also the media, the news and the culture. It may seem preposterous to you, but given enough time, money and inclination, it really is possible for people to run all these things. Its the reality that we live in.
matthewheath 6y ago
> Baraitser heard arguments on whether the full medical records of Assange from the doctors and psychiatrists who had given evidence should be released to the media. Both defence and prosecution opposed release, but Baraitser kept referring to “open justice”. She will rule on this on Monday . Outrageous. I cannot see any public interest justification in favour of releasing the records. Open justice can be done without releasing absolutely everything about the defendant.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  As Murray describes, the press has requested this information, presumably because they'd like to confirm previous accusations that he was subject to torture and medically neglected.
  - matthewheath 6y ago
    I see. If she does authorise that, hopefully it is in the most sensitive, least privacy-invading way possible -- e.g. only releasing pertinent records to be viewed in a secure location for a limited period of time, no copies to be made, etc.
sammorrowdrums 6y ago
I'm very disappointed by the lack of press for such a major extradition case! The fact it impacts press freedom, judicial impartiality, and foreign interference in a UK court, I feels like a lot of this extends far beyond this case, and I feel that the public should be aware of this to some degree. What can we do other than sharing links to try and get the word out?
- AllegedAlec 6y ago
  > I'm very disappointed by the lack of press for such a major extradition case! I completely agree with you here, which is why I'm so glad that the last few articles Murray did on this have been posted here and getting at least some attention. > What can we do other than sharing links to try and get the word out? Sharing the articles by Murray and others is, I think, the best way. Protesting is a: somewhat unhelpful, because that doesn't seem to get picked up by the media either, and also because the government will most likely object to large protests due to the covid situation. However, as Murray noted in other articles, news of the entire trial seems to get you shadowbanned from social media: > Even my blog has never been so systematically subject to shadowbanning from Twitter and Facebook as now. Normally about 50% of my blog readers arrive from Twitter and 40% from Facebook. During the trial it has been 3% from Twitter and 9% from Facebook. That is a fall from 90% to 12%. In the February hearings Facebook and Twitter were between them sending me over 200,000 readers a day. Now they are between them sending me 3,000 readers a day. To be plain that is very much less than my normal daily traffic from them just in ordinary times. It is the insidious nature of this censorship that is especially sinister – people believe they have successfully shared my articles on Twitter and Facebook, while those corporations hide from them that in fact it went into nobody’s timeline. My own family have not been getting their notifications of my posts on either platform.[1] 1: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-16/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...
  - zaarn 6y ago
    As noted in the HN article on that blog post, this is because FB shadowbans articles if they get organic growth for too long until they buy FB ads. This isn't specific to Assange's hearing but simply a reality of blog owners.
scoot_718 6y ago
> Furthermore, because the proceedings have been going on for too long, the defense is not allowed to submit new evidence So... like any normal trial then.
- AllegedAlec 6y ago
  That would be the case, were it not the case that halfway through the trial, the prosecution completely changed the charges on which Assange is to be extradited, and neglected to send those to the defense and expert witnes in a timely manner, to the point where a recurring theme has been that the expert witness statements have been criticized for only discussing the original set of allegations, while they only gained access to the new allegations sometimes literally hours before they were due to give their statements in court. Those sort of actions already destroy the notion that the trial is normal to begin with.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    Those sort of actions already destroy the notion that the trial is normal to begin with. That is because this proceeding is not a trial, and never was. The government (there is no prosecution here) is not trying to prove Assange's guilt, they're trying to prove that there is a criminal case against him in the US (i.e., meaning that he has been charged with crimes in the US and will be prosecuted on those charges in the US, and from a legal standpoint also that the charged activities would be crimes under UK law). There is literally nothing the defense can do to disprove the existence of a criminal case against Assange in the US if the government succeeds, so there is no reason to allow the evidence of Assange's purported innocence. Because it's irrelevant to extradition. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review The only reason the defense is being allowed to challenge extradition is because they're arguing its illegal under UK criminal rights provisions, such as those disalllowing extradition if it would result in torture, or if the defendant is mentally ill (but in such case extradition is only tolled for the duration of the mental illness).
    - ugopapa 6y ago
jmnicolas 6y ago
I'm sorry there's no English translation but if you read Spanish, find who the judge is married with and you will know everything you need to know about this trial: https://www.voltairenet.org/article210856.html https://www.voltairenet.org/article210856.html
- jaclaz 6y ago
  That is about another judge, Arbuthnot, not Baraitser.
  - jjgreen 6y ago
    Arbuthnot was the original judge for the case, but there were complaints about her impartiality so she handed it over to her subordinate, Baraitser. I believe it is still the case that Arbuthnot has not recused herself in this matter.
    - pmyteh 6y ago
      Handing over to another judge is what recusal is, no? It also should be noted that district judges are independent office holders, and Arbuthnot's position as Chief Magistrate is largely administrative - she doesn't have the power to overrule another magistrate, that power lies with the high court.
- undecisive 6y ago
  Interesting information. For summary's sake, looks like this post is talking about Baraitser's boss, Emma Arbuthnot, whose husband happens to be "a well-known "hawk" of the Conservative Party and former Minister of Defense, notoriously linked to the military-industrial complex" also connected to a US think tank. The article makes it clear that many of the conditions of Assange's trial (being kept in a box, unable to communicate etc) were initiated by Arbuthnot, and that Baraitser has simply followed the lead of her boss. Interesting read - no idea whether any of it is true... but certainly doesn't sound beyond the realm of possibility.
tyingq 6y ago
If I understand correctly, this hearing can be appealed to some higher UK court. If that's the case, all of these terrible sound bites and decisions might be good for for Assange in an appeal.
- matthewheath 6y ago
  Yes. As I have explained elsewhere, Mr Assange may appeal to the High Court, the Supreme Court, and then potentially the European Court of Human Rights.
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    Can you still appeal to the EU Court of Human Rights in Britain at this point? And if so, for how much longer?
    - bushin 6y ago
      It’s European court, not EU. So far only Belarus is not a member state.
      - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
        ah ok was confused.
  - yuriko 6y ago
    IIRC this is a criminal case, so the appeal does not go to the High Court. The first appellant court is Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      This is not a criminal case, so the appeal would not go to the criminal division. It's an extradition hearing. It goes to the High Court. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review
sleepysysadmin 6y ago
It's not a sham trial; it's a political trial. Assange is technically the one on trial but he doesn't matter. The decision is made. There's a very good reason why the media isn't covering the trial. They are the ones who are on trial by the governments. This is why 'fake news' and 'misinformation' really came to the forefront after Assange and this whole situation.
cataphract 6y ago
> Baraitser heard arguments on whether the full medical records of Assange from the doctors and psychiatrists who had given evidence should be released to the media. Both defence and prosecution opposed release, but Baraitser kept referring to “open justice”. She will rule on this on Monday. If these are relevant to the decision, there's a strong presumption in favor of them being released. How else is the public going to evaluate the judgment rendered by the judge if they don't have access to the facts? This is not private arbitration, the judge is being paid by the public coffers.
gamblor956 6y ago
In today's edition of the sham trial More 'time saving' measurements, because apparently that's more important than having a fair and/or humane trial You know how all of HN was in an uproar when the ex-Nicola CEO called HTML a "supercomputer"? Lawyers feel the same way when non-lawyers mislabel things and then get outraged because they think something is one thing when it's actually something entirely different. This is not a trial...it's a hearing. It is not a legal proceeding on the merits, so it will not result in any factual determinations of guilt, what happened, etc. It's simply a hearing to see if there is sufficient evidence of a criminal case so as to allow for extradition under the UK's treaty with the US. That is why the defense is generally not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses: it's besides the point for this proceeding. To the extent the defense is even allowed to present witnesses, it's not to contest guilt but to argue against the legality of extradition, such as by showing how conditions might be "inhumane" in US prisons, or how Assange's mental health would not allow for extradition under UK law, etc. Again: guilt or innocence is irrelevant to this proceeding. EDIT: link for the curious describing how extradition works in the UK. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review "The judge must be satisfied that the conduct amounts to an extradition offence (dual criminality), none of the bars to extradition apply, where applicable, there is prima facie evidence of guilt (in accusation cases), and whether extradition would breach the person’s human rights." (Note: "prima facie evidence" means that there is at least one piece of evidence supporting every element of at least one of the criminal charges against the defendant. It doesn't matter if that evidence could be rebutted in a trial; only that such evidence exists and is part of the investigative record.)
- TeaDrunk 6y ago
  Wouldn't the defense not being allowed to submit new evidence for inhuman conditions upon extradition be against the 'whether extradition would breach the person's human rights'? (Edit: Also thanks for taking the time in educating about this)
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    No, because the defense has been making that claim all along, so they should have submitted their evidence from the beginning. They're not allowed to surprise the government with "new" evidence that has existed since the start of the proceeding; real life doesn't work like a Hollywood movie. What new evidence about the inhumane conditions of US prisons has come into existence since the start of the trial? (Answer: COVID19, but that is only relevant so long as the pandemic continues, and would delay but not prevent extradition, which is why such evidence wasn't permitted at the hearing.) EDIT: Why then was the government allowed to swap the charges halfway? Because (a) some of the underlying charges for extradition were changed by the US so they had to, (b) they didn't swap all of the charges and (c) the UK government only needs to show a prima facie case for one of the extraditable charges (based on information given them by the US), not all of the charges, and they already did that for one of the original charges and that charge is still part of the US criminal indictment underlying the extradition. Note that because the hearing is a procedural matter, not a meritorious one, the magistrate judge would have the discretion to keep the case going even if all of the charges had been swapped.

rory_isAdonk 6y ago

Random question, but are you a relatively strong supporter of Wikileaks? I only ask as I was looking into "Wikileaks Community"(I think was the term), a group of people who would do in depth articles on the documents the group releases, after the fact.

jonathanstrange 6y ago
That doesn't sound like a "random question" to me.
- rory_isAdonk 6y ago
  It's just that I can find any trace of that sub-group of Wikileaks, I get its an organization that inherently benefits from a certain degree of secrecy. It just seemed if someone wanted to be involved that was a logically well separated means.
AllegedAlec 6y ago
I would not say I'm a strong supporter of Wikileaks, although I do believe their leaks have been critical in adjusting and making more realistic our views on the wars in Iraq et al, as well as exposing government overreach in the forms of extraordinary rendition, torture, and flagrant breaches of the laws of war. What bothers me most about this case is A: that America is doing this very much political hounding of a journalist becaues they were embarassed by them. B: the readiness of the UK to roll over and destroy its own justice system. First by having the judge be at the very least biased, but more likely having the judgement ready to extradite Assange. Secondly by having this public trial be very much private. First by limiting the public seats in the trial to less than a dozen and then also by excluding all NGOs and news sources who'd be critical of this sham. Lastly by the frankly horrendous treatment of Assange. Both by the conditions in which he's been kept in prison, putting him in a glass box so he can't hear the trial nor communicate with his legal team, but also by things like limiting the time he can spend with his legal team while awaiting the trial, to the point where the defense team wasn't sure they'd be able to do enough prep at all.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
LatteLazy 6y ago
I'm not OP but... I think there are so many reasons to call bullshit on this that are totally independent of whether I or you or anyone likes wiki leaks or Assaunge himself. This is about justice, the rule of law, press freedom and basic fairness long before its about whether anyone likes this particular defendant (let's face it, he's not as charismatic as say a dead fish).
- rory_isAdonk 6y ago
  Yeah I doubt they are totally independent, I assume its just a subset in the org that doesnt get access to how the rest of the organization works to protect the rest of the organization. Just effectively coordinating hobby bloggers.
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    That might well be true here. I actually think it's probably not simply because if it were, the US would have provided at least some evidence to try and get public opinion on side or further muddy the waters. But it also wouldn't surprise me, the Russians love useful idiots (who doesn't?). That said, Its irrelevant. We've been through this many times in world history. The answer to people publishing things that undermine a government position is to rethink the position. Not punish the person. Punish the person leaves the government unquestionable. And we know that is much much worse than any damage the truth can do because we're not trying to win some pissing context with Russia over who looks good. We're trying to maintain good policy.

feralimal 6y ago

I agree this is a sham trial. But why do you say so? You do not mean, as I think, that Julian Assange is simply an actor, and that the whole thing has been a charade rolled out by 3-letter agencies, from start to finish.

AllegedAlec 6y ago
> I agree this is a sham trial. But why do you say so? From all reporting I've read on it, also besides Murray's, it's been very clear that long before this trial has started the judgement to extradite Assange was already made. > You do not mean, as I think, that Julian Assange is simply an actor, and that the whole thing has been a charade rolled out by 3-letter agencies, from start to finish. I do not believe that Assange is an actor. What would the alphabet soup even gain by doing this whole circus?
- feralimal 6y ago
  > What would the alphabet soup even gain by doing this whole circus? They manage thesis and anti-thesis, the mainstream and the opposition. This is to say they maintain total control over the story arc.
  - AllegedAlec 6y ago
    That doesn't answer the question. What do they gain from it? Because to me, this seems like a fairly blatant and rather hamfisted attempt to prosecute someone for inconveniencing them. That's not the sort of action a group in complete control would have to perform.
    - feralimal 6y ago
      I'll try to answer more clearly - to hell with the downvotes! Ok - if you were king of the world, would you prefer to be managing an outright challenge to your authority, or would you prefer to manage a convincing appearance of an outright challenge to your authority? Either way that challenge - Assange here - will take a lot of people's effort and energy. The people have the power but they are being managed. He becomes an idol to some of those people considered rabble rousers by the governors. (For the religious, in your mind (temple) you have accepted a false idol - while you believe it to be true you will die for that idol every day.) As a controlled opposition character, he may provide some truth - he has to be convincing - but he won't deliver. He is not really a challenge. If you have read 1984, he is 'Emmanuel Goldstein'. Its the same story as Snowden. These characters (if they are even real people and not pastiches or CGI) are controlled opposition. They are acting a role - its a performance. They are intended to draw the sting from genuine people's discomfort and distress over the way our society is being managed downhill into tyranny, to take their well intentioned energy, and to waste it, so that nothing is achieved. Governance is not just politics. It is also the media, the news and the culture. It may seem preposterous to you, but given enough time, money and inclination, it really is possible for people to run all these things. Its the reality that we live in.

matthewheath 6y ago

> Baraitser heard arguments on whether the full medical records of Assange from the doctors and psychiatrists who had given evidence should be released to the media. Both defence and prosecution opposed release, but Baraitser kept referring to “open justice”. She will rule on this on Monday . Outrageous. I cannot see any public interest justification in favour of releasing the records. Open justice can be done without releasing absolutely everything about the defendant.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
As Murray describes, the press has requested this information, presumably because they'd like to confirm previous accusations that he was subject to torture and medically neglected.
- matthewheath 6y ago
  I see. If she does authorise that, hopefully it is in the most sensitive, least privacy-invading way possible -- e.g. only releasing pertinent records to be viewed in a secure location for a limited period of time, no copies to be made, etc.

sammorrowdrums 6y ago

I'm very disappointed by the lack of press for such a major extradition case! The fact it impacts press freedom, judicial impartiality, and foreign interference in a UK court, I feels like a lot of this extends far beyond this case, and I feel that the public should be aware of this to some degree. What can we do other than sharing links to try and get the word out?

AllegedAlec 6y ago
> I'm very disappointed by the lack of press for such a major extradition case! I completely agree with you here, which is why I'm so glad that the last few articles Murray did on this have been posted here and getting at least some attention. > What can we do other than sharing links to try and get the word out? Sharing the articles by Murray and others is, I think, the best way. Protesting is a: somewhat unhelpful, because that doesn't seem to get picked up by the media either, and also because the government will most likely object to large protests due to the covid situation. However, as Murray noted in other articles, news of the entire trial seems to get you shadowbanned from social media: > Even my blog has never been so systematically subject to shadowbanning from Twitter and Facebook as now. Normally about 50% of my blog readers arrive from Twitter and 40% from Facebook. During the trial it has been 3% from Twitter and 9% from Facebook. That is a fall from 90% to 12%. In the February hearings Facebook and Twitter were between them sending me over 200,000 readers a day. Now they are between them sending me 3,000 readers a day. To be plain that is very much less than my normal daily traffic from them just in ordinary times. It is the insidious nature of this censorship that is especially sinister – people believe they have successfully shared my articles on Twitter and Facebook, while those corporations hide from them that in fact it went into nobody’s timeline. My own family have not been getting their notifications of my posts on either platform.[1] 1: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-16/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...
- zaarn 6y ago
  As noted in the HN article on that blog post, this is because FB shadowbans articles if they get organic growth for too long until they buy FB ads. This isn't specific to Assange's hearing but simply a reality of blog owners.

scoot_718 6y ago

> Furthermore, because the proceedings have been going on for too long, the defense is not allowed to submit new evidence So... like any normal trial then.

AllegedAlec 6y ago
That would be the case, were it not the case that halfway through the trial, the prosecution completely changed the charges on which Assange is to be extradited, and neglected to send those to the defense and expert witnes in a timely manner, to the point where a recurring theme has been that the expert witness statements have been criticized for only discussing the original set of allegations, while they only gained access to the new allegations sometimes literally hours before they were due to give their statements in court. Those sort of actions already destroy the notion that the trial is normal to begin with.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Those sort of actions already destroy the notion that the trial is normal to begin with. That is because this proceeding is not a trial, and never was. The government (there is no prosecution here) is not trying to prove Assange's guilt, they're trying to prove that there is a criminal case against him in the US (i.e., meaning that he has been charged with crimes in the US and will be prosecuted on those charges in the US, and from a legal standpoint also that the charged activities would be crimes under UK law). There is literally nothing the defense can do to disprove the existence of a criminal case against Assange in the US if the government succeeds, so there is no reason to allow the evidence of Assange's purported innocence. Because it's irrelevant to extradition. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review The only reason the defense is being allowed to challenge extradition is because they're arguing its illegal under UK criminal rights provisions, such as those disalllowing extradition if it would result in torture, or if the defendant is mentally ill (but in such case extradition is only tolled for the duration of the mental illness).
  - ugopapa 6y ago

jmnicolas 6y ago

I'm sorry there's no English translation but if you read Spanish, find who the judge is married with and you will know everything you need to know about this trial: https://www.voltairenet.org/article210856.html https://www.voltairenet.org/article210856.html

jaclaz 6y ago
That is about another judge, Arbuthnot, not Baraitser.
- jjgreen 6y ago
  Arbuthnot was the original judge for the case, but there were complaints about her impartiality so she handed it over to her subordinate, Baraitser. I believe it is still the case that Arbuthnot has not recused herself in this matter.
  - pmyteh 6y ago
    Handing over to another judge is what recusal is, no? It also should be noted that district judges are independent office holders, and Arbuthnot's position as Chief Magistrate is largely administrative - she doesn't have the power to overrule another magistrate, that power lies with the high court.
undecisive 6y ago
Interesting information. For summary's sake, looks like this post is talking about Baraitser's boss, Emma Arbuthnot, whose husband happens to be "a well-known "hawk" of the Conservative Party and former Minister of Defense, notoriously linked to the military-industrial complex" also connected to a US think tank. The article makes it clear that many of the conditions of Assange's trial (being kept in a box, unable to communicate etc) were initiated by Arbuthnot, and that Baraitser has simply followed the lead of her boss. Interesting read - no idea whether any of it is true... but certainly doesn't sound beyond the realm of possibility.

tyingq 6y ago

If I understand correctly, this hearing can be appealed to some higher UK court. If that's the case, all of these terrible sound bites and decisions might be good for for Assange in an appeal.

matthewheath 6y ago
Yes. As I have explained elsewhere, Mr Assange may appeal to the High Court, the Supreme Court, and then potentially the European Court of Human Rights.
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  Can you still appeal to the EU Court of Human Rights in Britain at this point? And if so, for how much longer?
  - bushin 6y ago
    It’s European court, not EU. So far only Belarus is not a member state.
    - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
      ah ok was confused.
- yuriko 6y ago
  IIRC this is a criminal case, so the appeal does not go to the High Court. The first appellant court is Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    This is not a criminal case, so the appeal would not go to the criminal division. It's an extradition hearing. It goes to the High Court. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review

sleepysysadmin 6y ago

It's not a sham trial; it's a political trial. Assange is technically the one on trial but he doesn't matter. The decision is made. There's a very good reason why the media isn't covering the trial. They are the ones who are on trial by the governments. This is why 'fake news' and 'misinformation' really came to the forefront after Assange and this whole situation.

cataphract 6y ago

> Baraitser heard arguments on whether the full medical records of Assange from the doctors and psychiatrists who had given evidence should be released to the media. Both defence and prosecution opposed release, but Baraitser kept referring to “open justice”. She will rule on this on Monday. If these are relevant to the decision, there's a strong presumption in favor of them being released. How else is the public going to evaluate the judgment rendered by the judge if they don't have access to the facts? This is not private arbitration, the judge is being paid by the public coffers.

gamblor956 6y ago

In today's edition of the sham trial More 'time saving' measurements, because apparently that's more important than having a fair and/or humane trial You know how all of HN was in an uproar when the ex-Nicola CEO called HTML a "supercomputer"? Lawyers feel the same way when non-lawyers mislabel things and then get outraged because they think something is one thing when it's actually something entirely different. This is not a trial...it's a hearing. It is not a legal proceeding on the merits, so it will not result in any factual determinations of guilt, what happened, etc. It's simply a hearing to see if there is sufficient evidence of a criminal case so as to allow for extradition under the UK's treaty with the US. That is why the defense is generally not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses: it's besides the point for this proceeding. To the extent the defense is even allowed to present witnesses, it's not to contest guilt but to argue against the legality of extradition, such as by showing how conditions might be "inhumane" in US prisons, or how Assange's mental health would not allow for extradition under UK law, etc. Again: guilt or innocence is irrelevant to this proceeding. EDIT: link for the curious describing how extradition works in the UK. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review "The judge must be satisfied that the conduct amounts to an extradition offence (dual criminality), none of the bars to extradition apply, where applicable, there is prima facie evidence of guilt (in accusation cases), and whether extradition would breach the person’s human rights." (Note: "prima facie evidence" means that there is at least one piece of evidence supporting every element of at least one of the criminal charges against the defendant. It doesn't matter if that evidence could be rebutted in a trial; only that such evidence exists and is part of the investigative record.)

TeaDrunk 6y ago
Wouldn't the defense not being allowed to submit new evidence for inhuman conditions upon extradition be against the 'whether extradition would breach the person's human rights'? (Edit: Also thanks for taking the time in educating about this)
- gamblor956 6y ago
  No, because the defense has been making that claim all along, so they should have submitted their evidence from the beginning. They're not allowed to surprise the government with "new" evidence that has existed since the start of the proceeding; real life doesn't work like a Hollywood movie. What new evidence about the inhumane conditions of US prisons has come into existence since the start of the trial? (Answer: COVID19, but that is only relevant so long as the pandemic continues, and would delay but not prevent extradition, which is why such evidence wasn't permitted at the hearing.) EDIT: Why then was the government allowed to swap the charges halfway? Because (a) some of the underlying charges for extradition were changed by the US so they had to, (b) they didn't swap all of the charges and (c) the UK government only needs to show a prima facie case for one of the extraditable charges (based on information given them by the US), not all of the charges, and they already did that for one of the original charges and that charge is still part of the US criminal indictment underlying the extradition. Note that because the hearing is a procedural matter, not a meritorious one, the magistrate judge would have the discretion to keep the case going even if all of the charges had been swapped.