BC LEGAL
Saved by @CodyyyGardner

LIVE: UK judge Vanessa Baraitser set to rule on Julian Assange's extradition shortly. Live updates to follow below:

#Assange

 Connected to video platform with other journos, just getting things setup. Keep your fingers crossed for Julian.
Again, I can't overstate the importance of this case. The US is attempting to extra-territorialize its draconian espionage act, trash its own 1st amendment, and bully a journalist who is not American or broken a law in the US, because he exposed their crimes against humanity.
Also worth noting how one-sided and unbalanced the UK/US extradition treaty is, heavily favouring the US. From my interview with Gary McKinnon who the US also tried to extradite relentlessly.

https://t.co/l2sSKHsdck
The UK/US Extradition Treaty prohibits extradition for political trials (this being one). That part is mysteriously missing in its UK implementation: the Extradition Act 2003.
§91b, barring extradition on health grounds, IS included. This must be considered given Julian's health.
These are just a few among a plethora of concerns and violations regarding this case. Not to mention the fact that Julian was spied on, his personal affects confiscated... This violates any right to due process be it under US law, British common law.. the list goes on.
Court begins: #Assange is asked to stand and give his full name and date of birth. He is locked inside a glass box, wearing a face mask with a guard sitting behind him.
Judge Baraitser says she will touch on a few of the arguments before giving the verdict.
She is addressing Art. 4 of the Extradition Treaty, regarding political offences.

She's basically referring to my point from just a few minutes ago. She is basically saying "well it doesn't count, it's not in the Extradition Act 2003".

https://t.co/Zf8HCCQ1E4
Baraitser is now addressing the conspiracy hacking charges (allegedly helping Manning to crack a password). She finds that Assange's activities went beyond those of just a journalist.
She's bringing up conferences that Assange has attended, and comments he allegedly made, that he encouraged people to join the CIA and leak documents.

(Again, is that a crime? Journalists hound sources to leak them classified docs everyday).
Judge is parroting US indictment saying that Assange and @wikileaks disclosures endangered people (this is completely false, according to DoD themselves).

She asserts that free speech doesn't give anyone the "unfettered discretion" to publish whatever they want.
Audio is atrocious btw. Hard to make out everything judge is saying.
Judge finds "insufficient evidence" that Trump admin singled out Assange for a witch-hunt. She thinks there was a "healthy debate" about the charges. She is essentially saying she does not believe the indictment is political.
Judge is now addressing the UC Global spying on Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy on behalf of US intelligence. She's not taking it into consideration since trial and investigation into UC Global and its founder David Morales still on-going in Spain.
The Judge actually just tried to pass off SPYING on UK soil as legitimate, because the US may have had "legitimate" reasons to spy on Assange for their nat security. Unbelievable. That happened in London! It violates diplomatic accords and Ecuadorian sovereignty.
Technically Ecuadorian soil, since it was inside the Embassy:) But nonetheless, host country has a duty to protect embassies and diplomatic corps.
Audio has been slightly ameliorated
Judge does not find that the US is trying to punish Assange as hard as possible or any ill-intent on their behalf.

"No foundation by the defence submission, that evidence given by Manning" was due to torture.
She believes that constitutional protections will be afforded to Assange and thinks he will receive a fair trial (therefore no violation of Art. 6 of ECHR: right to a fair trial).

Did she miss the part where US Sec of State Pompeo said "Assange has no first amendment rights"?
Above is from when Pompeo was CIA director, in 2017. He also describes WikiLeaks as a "non-state hostile intelligence service"

https://t.co/vOiXPxKHx5
Judge Baraitser: 1st amendment protects freedom of speech, similar to article 10. I reject any suggestion that as a foreign national Assange will be denied these protections.

"This court trusts that a US court will properly consider Assange's right to free speech"

Yeah, right.
On health matters, she accepts Dr. Kopelman's assessment that Assange suffers from depression

She accepts that he also suffered from high-functioning autism and ASD

She finds that without support from his friends and his family, he has remained moderately or severely depressed.
She accepts that he has been at risk of suicide since his arrival at HMP Belmarsh.

Judge: "However, the overall impression is of a depressed man .. who is fearful about his future"
She accepts there is a real risk that he will be subjected to Special Administrative Measures (SAM's) given that the US intelligence community views Assange as a threat. She refers my link to Pompeo's comments above:

https://t.co/k3w4NFmIks
On the possibility of Assange being held at federal super-max ADX Florence, she accepts that he will likely be held there and under SAMs post trial.

The European Court acknowledges that the purpose of this regime is to prevent all physical contact between inmates and others.
I am satisfied that Assange has the intellect to circumvent suicide preventative measures. She accepts Kopelman's assessment that Assange will find a way to kill himself.
BREAKING: Judge Baraitser has ordered Julian Assange's discharge under Section 91b citing health reasons. The US has 14 days to appeal !!
Defence is asking Judge Baraitser for her to grant Assange bail. She's wondering if they can really manage to submit an application today.
As I said last night and many times before: he most likely won't be let out just yet (probably since he absconded bail previously, his only crime committed in the UK). However this is still good news.

Court is in recess. Stay tuned.
District Judge Vanessa Baraitser: "I order the discharge of Julian Paul Assange, pursuant to section 91(3) of the EA 2003".

https://t.co/6lQ7RxfU5d
Still waiting for a decision on bail, after court recess. They've let Al Qaeda figures out of Belmarsh so I don't see why a journalist can't be afforded the same luxury.

See also:

https://t.co/d9zByXXqJ9
While Baraitser's decision is good, this extradition should NOT have to hinge on Assange being (understandably) ill and at risk of suicide. He did nothing wrong. He exposed US crimes against humanity. US leadership should be the ones in a glass box on trial.
Afterwards, if you're interested you can find my day-by-day reporting on the extradition hearing from September/October in this YouTube playlist:

https://t.co/VEsfrvi81J
Bustling in the court room; hoping it resumes soon so we can get a clear idea on when the bail application will be made.
We can see a split screen; Julian in a glass box on the left and one of his lawyers Mark Summers on the right, observing remotely.

Fun fact: I discovered Mark Summers QC was on the US prosecution team during Gary McKinnon's extradition.

https://t.co/VSoNJOLVUu
Court resumes
Defence to judge: there are the strongest grounds to granting bail. But we wish to put all the information before you, dealing with Belmarsh conditions and conditions to reassure you of any concerns (re absconding).

Defence will make the bail application on Wednesday, Jan 6th.
Court is adjourned until Wednesday, Jan 6 to discuss bail. #Assange remains in custody.

Will be going live shortly to give a video summary: https://t.co/1slTmCyluJ

Thanks for supporting independent journalism:
PayPal: https://t.co/g19G9niKFs
Patreon: https://t.co/AWZmuKlEZV

More from Legal

Carissa Byrne Hessick
Carissa Byrne Hessick
@CBHessick
I have seen so many people (including folks on #lawtwitter) comparing what happened at the Capitol yesterday with the violence and property damage that happened in some cities during protests last summer.

Let me explain what is wrong with that analogy . . . . .

To clarify -- my disagreement is not with those who are pointing out that law enforcement didn't respond with the same level of force and arrests at the capitol as it did during BLM protests.

That comparison deserves to be drawn and it raises some very important questions.

My disagreement is with those who are saying that what happened at the Capitol yesterday is so similar to what happened during protests this summer, that people's reactions ought to be similar--a suggestion that those reacting more strongly now are hypocritical.

Here's one example of someone (a law professor) making the argument. But I've seen it plastered across the site all day, it keeps cropping up in my mentions, and so I want to respond.


There are a number of things that distinguish what happened at the Capitol from what happened during BLM protests. The most obvious is the reason that people protested---some protested about factually false claims about election fraud; others about real police shootings.
LEGAL
Michael Kobs
Michael Kobs
@MichaKobs
Without jumping to conclusions, this is a strange coincident. Is someone trying to kill two birds with one stone?


If you don't get caught up in the noise of the media, you'll notice a few more things. The far-right Oath Keepers has been patrolling major cities with heavy weapons for weeks. They were present in numbers at the Capitol, but without weapons.


https://t.co/t7M1svIIMe


You find photos of the arrested vandals but strangely enough not of the one 70-year-old who allegedly had a truck full of weapons. And at least I couldn't find an image of that truck. But the old man was apparently very talkative to the police.


The most questionable aspect, however, is the FBI's search for a person who was apparently caught on a surveillance camera the previous night.
At that time, it was possible to predict a mass gathering, but not the riot.
LEGAL
Advertisement
Hardly Birding \U0001f499
Hardly Birding 💙...
@HarringayBirder
Jessica Allen, Eliza Moore and Derbyshire Police - a brief thread

First, what happened? Well, it seems two friends got in separate cars and drove five miles to a reservoir to go for a walk with coffees in their hands. They were stopped by police and fined for (it appears) breaching the restriction on leaving or being outside one’s home...

... without a reasonable excuse set out in part 1 para 1 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020. They did this, it appears, because they saw the distance travelled *for* the exercise - and the fact beverages for consumption...

... had been brought by the walkers, as depriving the women of the defence provided by para. 2(2)(c) of the Regulations. That provision says you can leave or be outside your home if it is “reasonably necessary” to do so “to take exercise outside... alone, with one or more...

... members of their household, their linked household, or... where exercise is being taken as part of providing informal childcare for a child aged 13 or under, one or more members of their linked childcare household, or...
in a public outdoor place, with one other person...
LEGAL
AG
AG
@AGHamilton29
These people weren't murdered. They were legally executed after convictions for horrendous crimes, being sentenced to the death penalty, and going through countless appeals.


You can oppose the death penalty as a punishment without pretending that the people executed were victims or that carrying out those executions is comparable to murder.

As an example: Daniel Lee was a white supremacist who murdered a family (including an 8-year-old girl) by suffocating them with bags and then dumping their bodies in a swamp.

That's whose name @CoriBush wants you to remember.

Wesley Purkey admitted to kidnapping, raping, and then murdering a 16-year-old girl named Jennifer Long. He then dismembered her body. He also beat an 80-year-old woman to death.

Maybe we should learn the names of his victims instead, @CoriBush?

Dustin Honken was a meth dealer that murdered 5 people, including 2 girls under the age of 11, because their dad was set to testify against him on drug charges. He was specifically sentenced to death for killing the 2 kids.
LEGAL
JeLove
JeLove
@LovesTheLight
Transferring power back to you, the ppl
https://t.co/26N2YYXycn


Heart attacks can be dangerous

Changing of the Old Guard
Best of the Best

Battle of the Bulge
https://t.co/MpYwQFkhmy


Thunder indicates a storm is


Silent Run'g ..... Can u hear him
LEGAL

You May Also Like

Elizabeth May
Elizabeth May
@_ElizabethMay
This is NONSENSE. The people who take photos with their books on instagram are known to be voracious readers who graciously take time to review books and recommend them to their followers. Part of their medium is to take elaborate, beautiful photos of books. Die mad, Guardian.


THEY DO READ THEM, YOU JUDGY, RACOON-PICKED TRASH BIN


If you come for Bookstagram, i will fight you.

In appreciation, here are some of my favourite bookstagrams of my books: (photos by lit_nerd37, mybookacademy, bookswrotemystory, and scorpio_books)
FUN
Nikita Poojary
Nikita Poojary
@niki_poojary
Mr. Vijay Kedia built a net worth of over Rs. 800 crores.

But you probably never read past that headline.

So I binged hours of interviews to learn his investing principles and strategies.

Here are 20 lessons on investing from @VijayKedia1 Sir:

Collaborated with @AdityaTodmal


Before I start, a quick disclaimer, please don't ape his portfolio.

As the entry price, horizon and risk appetite would be far different than yours.

Rather lets draw inspiration and try to learn his stock picking skills.

Now let's DIVE IN👇

1/ Started off as a trader:

- Soon, beginner’s luck started to fade out and loses started to mount, to an extent where his mother was about to sell her ornaments.

- Although he was able to dodge the situation.

- This incident taught him the biggest lesson to have a stop-loss.

2/ Punjab Tractors:

- In 1990, he made his first investment by putting in his 10-years savings of Rs 35,000 in this stock, based on a news trigger that tractor industry will witness a turnaround.

- It worked and fetched him 4-5 times which he calls it as a fluke.


3/ He believes that an investor must possess three qualities:

i. Knowledge,
ii. Courage, and
iii. Patience.
GENERICLEARNINGS , ALL
Advertisement
Numberonepal
Numberonepal
@numberonepal
1/ Stolen from the greatawakening(DOT)win...

I will only be making one post here. Do not ask who I am. Do with this information as you please.

The Trump Card is being played. It's much simpler than you all realize. Some of you have gotten it right.
TRUMP , THE LAST DAYS IF THE REVOLUTION
Seth Abramson
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
(MAJOR NOTE) The reason Manafort took over Trump's campaign in just 3 weeks despite being hired as a mere delegate counter is that ROGER STONE initiated a whisper campaign against Corey Lewandowski. That campaign started...days after Manafort returned from meeting with WikiLeaks.

2/ Stone and Manafort are longtime business partners; we'd expect Manafort to tell Stone what Assange told him, and for him to expect Stone to then pressure the campaign not only to hire him but quickly elevate him.

And who was Stone in touch with at the campaign? Trump himself.

3/ I bet you Manafort's late March emails are very interesting and that some of them are to/from his longtime business associate Roger Stone. And I bet Roger Stone's late March phone calls are very interesting and that some of them are to/from his longtime friend Donald Trump.

4/ At the end of March 2016, Trump suddenly convenes a NatSec meeting. At that meeting he directs his NatSec team to change the RNC platform in July to benefit Putin. Who later takes credit for that change?

Paul Manafort's business associate, Kremlin agent Konstantin Kilimnick.

5/ Why did Donald Trump suddenly convene a NatSec meeting 3 days after he finally hired Manafort? Why did he issue a pro-Kremlin directive at that meeting that Manafort's camp would later take credit for? What did Manafort tell Trump in the days leading up to that NatSec meeting?
POLITICS
Justin Kan
Justin Kan
@justinkan
1/ Throughout my startup career, I’ve seen many founders have an aversion to sales. This is a mistake that can kill your startup.

2/ Sales is often viewed as either a saving grace or proof that the product isn’t good enough (because it should sell itself). Neither are ever true. Some common mistakes that result in...

3/ Mistake 1: Hire a sales rep before reaching product/market fit to get your initial batch of customers. This is a mistake because founders need to work through their MVP with early adopters to truly understand what it is they’re selling.

4/ Mistake 2: Reach product/market fit, need to scale, and rely entirely on self-serve. For enterprise products that require big commitments and internal shifts, almost no product is self-explanatory enough to sell itself.

5/ Mistake 3: Make a first sales hire who isn’t scrappy enough to help mold the sales process from scratch. Some salespeople are amazing at their jobs, but not cut out to establish the processes that others end up following. This skillset is what @rdedatta calls a “sales ninja”.
STARTUPS