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).
More from Law
We need to talk about the 'expert' witness statement evidence led by Ms Bell in her successful case before the Tavistock. THREAD
You can see who gave evidence in her support from these extracts from the Tavistock's Skeleton Argument.
Helpful for you to bear in mind that her solicitor was a man called Paul Conrathe, who has a long association with the religious right in the US (I have talked about him a number of times but this is as good a starting point as any).
I am not going to address here other criticisms that might be made of the form in which that evidence was given or the timing of its service before the court. I am just going to address, in alphabetical order, the individuals whose evidence Mr Conrathe led on Ms Bell's behalf.
The first witness, alphabetically, was Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Oxford, Michael Biggs.
Mr Biggs was exposed for posting transphobic statements online under a fake twitter handle: @MrHenryWimbush according to this report.
You can see who gave evidence in her support from these extracts from the Tavistock's Skeleton Argument.
Helpful for you to bear in mind that her solicitor was a man called Paul Conrathe, who has a long association with the religious right in the US (I have talked about him a number of times but this is as good a starting point as any).
In this thread, I noted the lawyer acting against the Tavistock, Paul Conrathe, is using very similar arguments (those under 18 cannot consent at all; or cannot lawfully consent without x conditions) as he has run/is running in a number of cases challenging abortion rights. https://t.co/gJk4c9bUED
— Jo Maugham (@JolyonMaugham) June 21, 2020
I am not going to address here other criticisms that might be made of the form in which that evidence was given or the timing of its service before the court. I am just going to address, in alphabetical order, the individuals whose evidence Mr Conrathe led on Ms Bell's behalf.
The first witness, alphabetically, was Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Oxford, Michael Biggs.
Mr Biggs was exposed for posting transphobic statements online under a fake twitter handle: @MrHenryWimbush according to this report.
I’ve been reading lots recently about the interaction between First Amendment law and free speech principles with respect to online services in light of the events of the last few weeks.
And I have thoughts (MY OWN). So, I’m sorry ... a thread 1/25
One of the main reasons I think users are best served by a recognition that social media services have 1st Amendment rights to curate the content on their sites is because many users want filtered content, either by topic, or by behavior, or other. 2/
So online services should have the right to do this filtering, and to give their users the tools to do so too. For more detail see our Prager U amicus brief https://t.co/73PswB9Q7Q 3/
So, I disagree with my friends (and others) who say that every online service should apply First Amendment rules, even though they cannot be required to do so. There are both practical and policy reasons why I don’t like this. 4/
Most obviously, the 1st Amendment reflects only one national legal system when this is inherently an international issue. So it’s politically messy, even if you think a 1st Amendment-based policy will be most speech-protective (though probably only non-sexual speakers). 5/
And I have thoughts (MY OWN). So, I’m sorry ... a thread 1/25
One of the main reasons I think users are best served by a recognition that social media services have 1st Amendment rights to curate the content on their sites is because many users want filtered content, either by topic, or by behavior, or other. 2/
So online services should have the right to do this filtering, and to give their users the tools to do so too. For more detail see our Prager U amicus brief https://t.co/73PswB9Q7Q 3/
So, I disagree with my friends (and others) who say that every online service should apply First Amendment rules, even though they cannot be required to do so. There are both practical and policy reasons why I don’t like this. 4/
Most obviously, the 1st Amendment reflects only one national legal system when this is inherently an international issue. So it’s politically messy, even if you think a 1st Amendment-based policy will be most speech-protective (though probably only non-sexual speakers). 5/
You May Also Like
So it's now October 10, 2018 and....Rod Rosenstein is STILL not fired.
He's STILL in charge of the Mueller investigation.
He's STILL refusing to hand over the McCabe memos.
He's STILL holding up the declassification of the #SpyGate documents & their release to the public.
I love a good cover story.......
The guy had a face-to-face with El Grande Trumpo himself on Air Force One just 2 days ago. Inside just about the most secure SCIF in the world.
And Trump came out of AF1 and gave ol' Rod a big thumbs up!
And so we're right back to 'that dirty rat Rosenstein!' 2 days later.
At this point it's clear some members of Congress are either in on this and helping the cover story or they haven't got a clue and are out in the cold.
Note the conflicting stories about 'Rosenstein cancelled meeting with Congress on Oct 11!"
First, rumors surfaced of a scheduled meeting on Oct. 11 between Rosenstein & members of Congress, and Rosenstein just cancelled it.
He's STILL in charge of the Mueller investigation.
He's STILL refusing to hand over the McCabe memos.
He's STILL holding up the declassification of the #SpyGate documents & their release to the public.
I love a good cover story.......
The guy had a face-to-face with El Grande Trumpo himself on Air Force One just 2 days ago. Inside just about the most secure SCIF in the world.
And Trump came out of AF1 and gave ol' Rod a big thumbs up!
And so we're right back to 'that dirty rat Rosenstein!' 2 days later.
At this point it's clear some members of Congress are either in on this and helping the cover story or they haven't got a clue and are out in the cold.
Note the conflicting stories about 'Rosenstein cancelled meeting with Congress on Oct 11!"
First, rumors surfaced of a scheduled meeting on Oct. 11 between Rosenstein & members of Congress, and Rosenstein just cancelled it.
Rep. Andy Biggs and Rep. Matt Gaetz say DAG Rod Rosenstein cancelled an Oct. 11 appearance before the judiciary and oversight committees. They are now calling for a subpoena. pic.twitter.com/TknVHKjXtd
— Ivan Pentchoukov \U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8 (@IvanPentchoukov) October 10, 2018
