I’ve often said that nothing is normal about Julian Assange’s case. Here’s my list of the top 10 least normal aspects, strictly on the logistical side of monitoring the extradition proceedings (this is not to mention the many substantive issues that are also far from normal).

1. The judge’s stubbornly persistent refusal to acknowledge that NGO observers are professionals and have an important role to play (separate to that of the general public) in ensuring open justice, and refusal to grant us access to be able to do our jobs properly.
2. The constantly shifting goal posts in gaining access to the public gallery, and arbitrary restrictions on numbers in all 3 courts where proceedings have been held. On any given day, it’s impossible to predict how many will be let in and when, necessitating very early queuing.
3. Receiving conflicting information from the court about remote access, including being accredited to the Cloud Video Platform and then having that access revoked in September. The same thing seems to have happened to us again for 4th January.
4. After unbelievable difficulty getting in, what we actually observed was a small screen on the other side of a large room. It was often impossible to tell who was who, and I could only follow properly as I had the lawyers’ voices memorised from February (when I could see them).
5. Being treated as an inferior class of human at the Old Bailey, where you face extensive searches, cannot bring in any devices (yet there‘s nowhere to leave them) or have so much as water with you, and where the ladies room was often locked (after queuing for hours to get in).
6. The freezing temperature in the Old Bailey overflow courtroom, which court guards told me was set by the judge herself. Cold air constantly blasted down on us in the public gallery, leaving us shivering for hours, even with coats and other layers.
7. A horrible incessant buzzing from a light that malfunctioned in the public gallery, making it difficult to hear proceedings and giving us headaches. It took the court 6 days to simply remove the bulb causing the problem, and only after intervention from a political observer.
8. Despite the court’s insistence that public gallery seats are allocated on a first-come first-served basis, 3 of 5 total seats were held back for mysterious “VIPs” for nearly 3 weeks of proceedings, until we found out they were for diplomats who were unaware & then intervened.
9.Extensive technical difficulties with the remote video testimonies of many of the expert witnesses, wasting hours of court time. Also periodic problems with reverberation in the livestream of proceedings in the main courtroom to us in the overflow room (plus those on the CVP).
10.Aggression from some “activists” whose sole purpose seems to be attacking genuine Assange supporters & blocking others from attending proceedings. One took a photo from the public gallery in February, which the judge is still citing as grounds for blocking NGOs remote access.
To clarify, this is a small number of intentionally disruptive people who are easily identifiable as they engage in similar behaviour online. They purport that Assange’s own legal team is part of the conspiracy against him & are vile about his partner and their children. Be wary.

More from Law

How to avoid (successful) accusations of defamation on Twitter. A few thoughts from someone who is NOT a libel lawyer, but does say very critical things about named individuals. 1/

1. Facts are different from opinions. But stating an opinion can imply a fact.
https://t.co/1PkiI4olib


2. When I tweet I aim to be sure A. I show the *facts* I am basing my *opinion* on. B. I have good reason to believe the *facts* are true. C. My opinion is reasonable based on the facts.

Here I am calling Arron Banks a racist (opinion). Pointing out this is because he called for mosques to be demolished (fact). 4/


I can prove this fact - and others - about what Banks has said. And I can justify why in my opinion that shows he’s a racist. 5/
There is a now-relevant parallel here to the difference here between matters before a judge & matters before a jury. Judges are far more reluctant to strike testimony or evidence if they are the only recipients of it, with the theory being that they are really smart about ...


law stuff & will know what they can & can't consider. For instance, there is a long-held rule that a fact witness can't make legal arguments, only a lawyer. So what will happen in a motion for summary judgment, where the entire proceeding is on paper, will play out like this:

1) Defendant makes a motion for summary judgment. It includes a sworn declaration from some fact witness.

2) The declaration includes all sorts of legal arguments about why the defendant should win. Often the declaration includes arguments the brief didn't even make.

Defendants (especially DOJ-represented ones) often do this to get around the word or page-limits placed on briefs.

3) Plaintiff moves to strike the declaration for its inclusion of inadmissible legal arguments.

4) Judge denies the motion to strike, on the grounds that a ...

judge is a sophisticated consumer of evidence & can choose what to consider & what to ignore, unlike a jury.

The legal fiction behind this impeachment exception is that Senators are also smart enough to know what to listen to & what to ignore. Now, that may not be ACCURATE, ...

You May Also Like

हिमालय पर्वत की एक बड़ी पवित्र गुफा थी।उस गुफा के निकट ही गंगा जी बहती थी।एक बार देवर्षि नारद विचरण करते हुए वहां आ पहुंचे।वह परम पवित्र गुफा नारद जी को अत्यंत सुहावनी लगी।वहां का मनोरम प्राकृतिक दृश्य,पर्वत,नदी और वन देख उनके हृदय में श्रीहरि विष्णु की भक्ति अत्यंत बलवती हो उठी।


और देवर्षि नारद वहीं बैठकर तपस्या में लीन हो गए।इन्द्र नारद की तपस्या से घबरा गए।उन्हें हमेशा की तरह अपना सिंहासन व स्वर्ग खोने का डर सताने लगा।इसलिए इन्द्र ने नारद की तपस्या भंग करने के लिए कामदेव को उनके पास भेज दिया।वहां पहुंच कामदेव ने अपनी माया से वसंतऋतु को उत्पन्न कर दिया।


पेड़ और पौधों पर रंग बिरंगे फूल खिल गए और कोयलें कूकने लगी,पक्षी चहकने लगे।शीतल,मंद,सुगंधित और सुहावनी हवा चलने लगी।रंभा आदि अप्सराएं नाचने लगीं ।किन्तु कामदेव की किसी भी माया का नारद पे कोई प्रभाव नहीं पड़ा।तब कामदेव को डर सताने लगा कि कहीं नारद क्रोध में आकर मुझे श्राप न देदें।

जैसे ही नारद ने अपनी आंखें खोली, उसी क्षण कामदेव ने उनसे क्षमा मांगी।नारद मुनि को तनिक भी क्रोध नहीं आया और उन्होने शीघ्र ही कामदेव को क्षमा कर दिया।कामदेव प्रसन्न होकर वहां से चले गए।कामदेव के चले जाने पर देवर्षि के मन में अहंकार आ गया कि मैने कामदेव को हरा दिया।

नारद फिर कैलाश जा पहुंचे और शिवजी को अपनी विजयगाथा सुनाई।शिव समझ गए कि नारद अहंकारी हो गए हैं और अगर ये बात विष्णु जी जान गए तो नारद के लिए अच्छा नहीं होगा।ये सोचकर शिवजी ने नारद को भगवन विष्णु को ये बात बताने के लीए मना किया। परंतु नारद जी को ये बात उचित नहीं लगी।