#Assange Bail Hearing 6 January 2021
On the videolink to London and waiting to cross to the court room.
Within 2hrs we’ll know if Julian will walk out of that court room or head back to Covid infected Belmarsh to spend potentially another couple of years while appeals are heard.
He has been detained for 15 months AFTER his bail penalty lapsed. He has been detained since then ..
Fitzgerald making the point that the Covid situation is worse now & he is more at risk in Belmarsh where there was a spike recently (in November)
Judge re costs: the order shouldn’t take effect till result of appeal.
US have already lodged their appeal. Outcome of appeal is not yet known. JA still has reason to abscond. If he absconds they will lose opportunity to appeal. He has let down people who have put up surety in the past. Belmarsh bares no comparison to USprison
Not that it was the only reason he was denied bail, but it is certainly regarded as proof of the assistance he is capable of giving someone to evade “justice”
More from Legal
1/ In "stupid lawsuits over mean tweets" news, the 6th Cir. will hear arguments shortly in a case against @kathygriffin (save your personal opinions about her, I really don't care). Listen in here at 1:30 Eastern:
2/ The case has flown mostly under the radar, likely because it was dismissed on the relatively unsexy issue of personal jurisdiction. But it's extremely important in cases about online speech (I'll add more to this thread later about that).
3/ The suit was brought by parents of Covington Catholic students that attended that infamous 'March for Life', who probably saw the Sandmann lawsuit and said "let's try to get rich off of this too!" There's no shortage of lawyers willing to help you on that quest.
4/ The basis of the lawsuit is that during the whirlwind of coverage over the March for Life incident, Kathy Griffin sent some tweets about identifying the protesters seen in the videos that went viral.
Complaint: https://t.co/EF9ST2Som5
5/ The lawsuit calls these tweets "doxing," which strikes me as kind of hyperbolic. I know some people disagree with me on this, but the identity of someone taking part in a public event (which is literally all Griffin asked for) is not particularly private information.
2/ The case has flown mostly under the radar, likely because it was dismissed on the relatively unsexy issue of personal jurisdiction. But it's extremely important in cases about online speech (I'll add more to this thread later about that).
3/ The suit was brought by parents of Covington Catholic students that attended that infamous 'March for Life', who probably saw the Sandmann lawsuit and said "let's try to get rich off of this too!" There's no shortage of lawyers willing to help you on that quest.
4/ The basis of the lawsuit is that during the whirlwind of coverage over the March for Life incident, Kathy Griffin sent some tweets about identifying the protesters seen in the videos that went viral.
Complaint: https://t.co/EF9ST2Som5

5/ The lawsuit calls these tweets "doxing," which strikes me as kind of hyperbolic. I know some people disagree with me on this, but the identity of someone taking part in a public event (which is literally all Griffin asked for) is not particularly private information.