I found this on Foxy Wolf on Telegram and was contributed by EWillHelpYou. This is yesterday's extradition appeal (Day 1) on Julian Assange
------ This is day one of the trial, in which the US Government will present its appeal against the extradition denial ruled on in January.
Day two will be the defense rebuttal. ---------- This thread will be updated in real time as the case progresses through the day. --------- A SERCO van has pulled up outside the court, likely holding Assange as we await the beginning of the hearing. ---- A growing number of protesters are shouting "Free Julian Assange" and other slogans from outside the courthouse itself. ----- Someone with a megaphone is speaking to the crowd, discussing case details around the now exposed and incarcerated FBI informant "Siggy The hacker" and the CIA plot to murder Julian. *Crowd resumes chanting "Free Julian Assange". --------- We are about an hour out from the start of the hearing itself. A growing crowd has begun yelling "Free Julian Assange" again. ---- Reporters Without Borders and Amnesty International representatives are now inside the main building, just outside the courtroom. There seems to be an issue with reporters/observers wanting into the courtroom itself at the moment. ---- Julian Assange's father, John Shipton, has just entered the court. --------------- Stella Morris, Julian Assange's fiancée has just arrived at the court; alongside other members of Julian's team. They will make a statement momentarily on a stage set up nearby.
*current editor of Wikileaks takes stage: states that Julian Assange has been barred from appearing in person from this hearing. He will be forced to appear by video link.
Goes on to discuss the US false assurances surrounding their extradition efforts. Stella Morris takes stage next. Says Julian was not allowed to appear today, they hope he will be allowed tomorrow. Says this is about extraditing a journalist to the country that conspired to kill him. She expresses serious concern for Julian's health, says he is very thin. Begs that "wise heads prevail." Morris Statement: "We are very concerned he is not here to be able to give instructions to his lawyers, ask for clarification for going-ons in court. And today will be about the US distorting the suffering it has inflicted on Julian". ..."It is abusing extradition treaty, this must be ended". (Statements paraphrased in part in real time) ------------ Per Reporters Without Borders: "We have been forced into a scrum outside the public gallery door, and have been told only 8 people will get in, one member of public is acting aggressively toward reporters/observers and refusing to respect queue. Court should not put us in this situation" --------------- Court audio/video link is now live to reporters. ------------- Crowd outside the Court is growing quite large. Dozens of people now. ---------- We are a little less than a half hour out from the start of the proceedings. -------- The US will argue today about "assurances" they offer meant to put the UK courts at ease. They will claim there is no reason not to accept their claims at face value.
Not only do they stipulate that their assurances not to effectively torture Julian are conditional and can be changed at a later date, but they will conveniently forget and censor from reality cases like Abu Hamza, a prisoner with no hands, whom they made the exact same promises over, and the summarily broke those promises. Doing things like refusing to turn a shower on for him, or help him brush his teeth. Leading to dental disease and other health issues. He remains, in an supermax facility to this day, under SAMS, despite the US "assurances". -------------- There are some 46 journalists covering the case by audio/video link, mostly independent. Two Reporters Without Borders observers are officially in the courtroom after a lot of difficulty. ------------ The fact that Julian has been barred from attending this proceeding in person, a case that will decide his very freedom and life; is in and of itself an egregious breach of justice. --------------
Julian Assange has asked to be excused from appearing on the video link. There seems to be some debate by his defense about the nature of him being disallowed to appear in person.
We are waiting for the court to clarify what is going on. --- Judges have enetered the court. ------ Apparently Julian has been heavily medicated on a new medication, according to defense, and cannot attend by video link as he is not feeling well enough today. ------------- Audio/video feed for reporters is absolutely awful. -------- Court has begun. It will go until 4pm (BST) with a half hour for the defense from 4-4:30. Tomorrow will be the opposite. ------------- US opens arguments saying they contend that the extradition denial was wrong. That the district judge ruled in error. ---------- Prosecution, as expected, is going over the US Gov's false assurances. ------- US Gov is attempting to argue in favor of "remitting" the case and restart the entire process of trying it. Indefinitely attempting to keep Assange imprisoned based on technicality that would send it back to district courts. ----- US Governments argues that had the district judge heard their "assurances" she would have extradited Julian to begin with. ---------- So far the US Government's argument is about what was expected. Hammering home their "assurances" and completely censoring the reality of the case out of their argument. A reminder that this day belongs to the prosecution almost entirely, but for a single half hour, and that tomorrow is dedicated to Assange's defense. ---------- Prosecution is quoting US Attorney Kromberg's "assurances" again as fact (although they clearly stipulate that they can be changed at will at any time the US gov would choose to, rendering them effectively moot) ----------- Posted below this thread is a copy of the US Gov's false assurances.* ---------- Prosecution is arguing that the extradition denial over mental health reasons is void because of their "assurances". ----- US government says its prison conditions do not violate the European Convention on Human Rights. And that the risk of inhumane treatment is being conflated by defense. ----- The US governmemt is attempting sleight of hand here. Julians defense argued against prison conditions under extradition laws, not under article three. So it is a false argunent meant to appear related to the defense without actually being what was argued or ruled on (defense will likely address this later) --------- Prosecution has begun a strange road of touting the mental health access for prisoners in hyper-restrictive settings like ADX and SAMs. **This goes against a great many studies and evidence around mental health within the US prison system. Honesty, does not seem to be on their menu today ---------- Prosecution is arguing that the mental health expert's opinions on assange, relied on his being confined to ADX or SAMs (Prosecution is attempting to build a false argument based on their false assurances) -------------- A brief glimpse of Julian attending via video link now was seen, he looks very ill indeed. He is coughing and seems to be in pain, but attempting to attend. --------- The US entire argument so far seems to be predicated on the absolute acceptance of their false assurances at face value. --------- US is basically stating that the district judge erred in accepting the expert testimony and belief that SAMS would be imposed on Assange, and ruled based off of that assumption, but that somehow the US Gov's false assurances, which were not submitted at the time; mean Assanges mental health is no longer an issue, and so he would not commit suicide and should be extradited anyways. ------ Judge confirms Julian will now attend by video link (Julian looks awful, clearly very ill)
---- US government (prosecution) is still involved in manufacturing circular logic. Everything they are arguing is based off of their false assurances that Assange will not be placed in ADX or under SAMS (although as provided statements show, they are clearly stipulating the right to at any time they so choose) ------- Prosecution argues again that " if we remove SAMS and ADX" district judge would have extradited (this is inherently untrue, and their assurances false anyways, but prosecution has the floor for several more hours to drive these lies home and build a false argument still) ------------ Prosecution says it is "essential" in extradition law to trust the US Gov's assurances. ----------- Hundreds of people are now gathered outside the courthouse protesting. The crowd is becoming quite massive. ------------ It is important to note* that the majority of prisoners held in oppressive conditions, are never specifically labeled under SAMS or ADX, that these conditions exist regularly all the time, and that the prosecution's current argument relies on ignorance of this fact. ----------
Prosecution is now arguing that solitary confinement is not in violation of the European Court on Human Rights Article 3. ( this is a repeat of their eaelier argument, they are attempting to reinforce their strawman) **Again important to note, extended solitary confinement certainly does violate this. ------------- Prosecution arguing that solitary isn't repressive, because inmates can still shout to each other through cell bars. --------- Prosecution now claiming that Assange's right to meet with his lawyers means he wouldn't be held in "total solitary" in pre-trial proceedings.
(Prosecution seems to have lost their minds somewhere along the way.) ------- Prosecution argues that US has not specifically broken assurances to the UK (strawman again, country specific mention, and the assurances have giant built-in loopholes) ---------- Most of the prosecutions argument has already been widely refuted by legal scholars and authorities both foreign and domestic. They are repeating old, disproven statements. --------- Prosecution has begun to attack examples of past legal assurances they breached, and is trying to explain them away. ---------- Prosecution admits "assurances" around ADX and SAMS are "conditional" says they cannot give Assange a blank cheque there.
(Because they intend to torture him obviously) --------- Prosecution turns to Hamza case, and says it didnt violate assurances because US only said it was "Highly unlikely" the handless and eyeless offendor would be placed in ADX, but didnt actually specify he wouldnt.
(An oddly counterproductive argument to make when they are pushing "conditional assurances" with Assange.) -------- Prosecution says "assurances" were only issued to reassure the court, but that they believed SAMS etc were "highly unlikely" to be used on Assange (which is eerily the exact language used by the US in the just discussed Hamza case where they broke those thin assurances). -------- Prosecution is now arguing, based off of a single case example, that SAMS and ADX do not necessarily mean restrictive conditions. And therefore are not restrictive or dangerous to Assange's health, period. ---------- The prosecutions argument continues in a manufactured circle. Because there is no risk of ADX or SAMS (false) there is no risk of suicide (false) and therefore there is no risk of suicide violating article 3 to prevent extradition (also false). - It seems this is the only argument they have to make here. Repeatedly. -------- Prosecution now pitches improbable scenario cases of first amendment challenges that Assange might raise post-extradition.
(Again, prosecution continues to exist in some sort of alternate reality) ------ Julian has left the proceeding for a moment. --------
Assange has left the proceeding (via video link) after conversing with a guard beside him. He seems very sick today and incredibly thin. --------- Prosecution is now bringing up cases of suicidal inmates who failed to kill themselves in custody, and attempting to use this to bolster their argument. ---- Again, nearly all of the prosecutions argument today relies on already debunked statements they used earlier. ------ Prosecution is now literally arguing that Assange wasnt "suicide-y enough" to prevent extradition. ------ Prosecution is continuing to argue the suicide angle, discussing lauri love case, in which an autistic hacker related to the Anonymous collective was tried on similar charges to Assange and was denied extradition based on mental health reasons. Prosecution is attempting to draw distinction between Assange and Lauri by virtue of Lauri's other conditions, eczema and asthma... both persons are on the autism scale. ------ Prosecution continues on the suicide angle saying that the US has a lower suicide rate than the UK prisons (which implies again, that Assange should be imprisoned at all)
Note* This is retread ground, expect defense to address this later. ----------- Prosecution claims that by refusing to extradite Assange over his suicidal potential, the UK might not ever be able to extradite suicidal people again. Or that people claiming suicidal ideation might become a catch all to being extradited. ------- Court is on an hour recess for lunch. Back at 2pm (BST). (9am EST) ------------ Court is slowly resuming ---------- Prosecution responding to question, "why were assurances not given before the extradition denial?" claims assurances can be given at any point, including appeal. --------------- Julian is back via video link. ---------- Prosecution argues that the "assurances" only became necessary based off of lower court denial of extradition. ------ Prosecution keeps claiming there was and is no risk of Assange being placed under SAMS/ADX. (which really begs the question why they explicitly reserve the right to do so in their legal argument then.) -------- Prosecution seems to take issue with the notion of defense's worry of a 270 year sentence, as opposed to the maximum he posits, which is 175 years... bearing in mind Assange is 50 already, this seems a very moot point. They both constitute life sentences. Prosecution references both Daniel Hale and Reality winner as examples of lenient sentencing (again, unrelated to Assange's charges, and Assange is guilty of no crime). ------- Prosecution now moves to challenge the mental health assertions of expert witness Professor Kopelman. They assert, based off of their government employed psychiatrist, that Assange was exaggerating his condition. *note again, ground already tread; Original judge already stipulated this possibilty and found Kopelman's testimony in relation to Assange's mental state to be sound. --------- Prosecution claims that because Julian took extreme measures by taking asylum in the ecuadorian embassy to avoid extradition to the US (mind you, the US denied a deaire to extradite him until it was accidently uncovered). That his case deserves "a dispassionate approach" (which is another way of saying, heartless and psychopathic approach.) --------- Prosecution is attacking Kopelmams failure to disclose Assange's relationship with Stella and their two children. (Again re-treading old ground, the cia was spying on them, and plotting to kill them, and their lives would have been in danger by virtue of such an action) --- Prosecution argues that if Assange were represemted as having been trying to start a family, it would have prevented the denial around suicide (because people with families dont commit suicide when endlessly imprisoned? Im not sure their point here honestly, but it seems horrid)
If you are wondering how the US Govs case against Assange is looking, the answer is, not good. ---- Tomorrow we strike back, it becomes the defense's turn, and you can bet that we will be pursuing the CIAs plot to murder him and other Wikileaks staff, the spying operations contracted through UC Global and Sheldon Adelson, and beyond that, the massive number of dangerous illegalities exposed in this case, and the impossible nature of this ever representing anything even remotely close to the pursuit of justice.
The US Gov trodded out a tired and already disproven argument, that signals either they are out of wiggle room, or they have given up on legitimately fighting this. (I tend to think they have simply run out of space to manuever).
What is clear from today, though, is regardless of this trial; Assange is very sick right now, and needs to be freed; cared for, and back with his family.
So here, my friends, is to the rising possibility of victory for Julian, for the protection of our inalienable rights and liberties which are directly at risk in this case, and to the furtherance of transparency and accountability for ruling institutions.
-------- Julian looks exhausted and is having trouble staying awake it seems. ------- Prosecution is arguing that by not disclosing Stella's relationship to Julian, they actively misled the court (one might assume the US governments non-admittance of attempting to murder all of them might also be considered misleading and directly related to this event. Defense will have to decide that. ) ---- Prosecution fails to note that the original judge took into consideration the situation around Stella and Julian, and understood the implications of Kopelmans actions and knew about their relationship *before* weighing any medical evidence. So even with the omission, it would not have impacted her decision. --- Julian has moved out of camera view (again, he looks very ill, not sure what is going on there) --- Prosecution attempts to wave away expert testimony from Dr Crosby, as a "friend of Assange". And says they wont bother the court with it. *Dr. Crosby found Assange suffered from major depression with psychotic characterstics due to his long term imprisonment, and found him to be at extreme risk of self harm and suicide. ---- Prosecution continues to tought their own doctor, Dr. Blackwood who has received millions from US and UK militaries and special interests, as an unbiased opinion who just so happens to agree with them completely that Assange's condition is just fine for extraditing. That all the other multiple experts can be ignored based on that fact. ---- Prosecution claims Julian did not report any psychotic symptoms to any of their medical experts or Belmarsh prison psychiatrist. Prosecution then proceeds to echo the doctors they funded whose testimony says Julian's depression was not that bad etc. ----- Prosecution is treading a lot of ground already covered here. Really their entire argument has nothing to do with legal technicalities, but seems to be an attempt to convince different judges of an already failed and disproven argument. --- Prosecution just argued that Julian liking the library, and oranges, meant he wasnt suicidal. They legitimately argued this, in a court of law. --- Nothing new out of the prosecution on this appeal. They are attacking Kopelman's testimony; which was their original failed move. Only it looks much worse this time around kn light of the public exposure of the CIAs plot to kidnap/kill Julian and staff/family. ---- Prosecution is now complaining about Nils Milzer, the UN special Rapporteur on torture, who interviewed Assange and found significant signs of psychological torture. Claiming because Dr. Kopelmam agreed, that somehow this means they had a "bias"? (The US Government's argument is... not so good here) ----- Prosecution seems to dislike the fact that testimony from US Attorney for the EDVA Gordon Kromberg was not taken seriously by Nilz and Kopelman (Kromberg basically wrote fiction, so this is understandable). ----- Prosecution is now attacking the fact that only one doctor diagnosed Assange with autism (though two others diagnosed him with "autistic traits") so.... the US government is again, just treading old ground here.
Their goal here to undercut the idea that his autism causes ruminations; and with his depression, dwells around suicide, and single mindedly might drive him to commit suicide if extradited. ---- Chief Justice agrees with prosecution on technicality that district court judge may have committed an error in negotiating kopelman statement opinion. ---- The final moments of the prosecution end with them wrongly concluding that evidence and testimony deserved to be weighted differently (by which they mean in their favor instead). -- Defense will have 30 minutes now, and the whole day tomorrow ---- Defense argues that prosecution completely misrepresented both evidence and district Judge's ruling. -- Defense points out Dr Blackwood said 'suicidal ideation is not a medical issue.'
------- Defense argues that Dr Blackwood, the Prosecutions doctor; didnt even realize Julian was in the Belmarsh medical wing to begin with for suicidal ideation and thoughts of self harm. ----- Defense points out clearly, that prosecution has failed to identify a single error of law, and is simply attempting to re-try the case before the High Court. ---- Defense says it is the obligation of the court to understand what it is sentencing Julian to, and in doing so, must understand the weight of the future Julian would face should he be extradited. Defense says Julian was on suicide prevention measures his entire length of incarceration at Belmarsh, and that the judiciary holds a responsibility and power to prevent vulnerable people with mental disorders from extradition. ----- Defense says district Judge made her decision based off of a full picutre of knowledge and the strawman being manufactured by prosecutors is nonsense. ---- Defense raises points where district Judge carefully weighed the evidence presented, and fully describes her opinions on Assange's suicidal impulses and then inability of the US Gov to safeguard against them. - Defense describes, in detail, the multiple areas where the district judge described why she preferred Kopelman's testimony to the Government hired doctors. --- Defense ends by saying the US Govs "assurances" come very late into this and should be inadmissible in fairness to the case.
Court is done for the day.
Tomorrow it resumes, and is the defense's day at bat the entire day.
Pandemic reveals the sham of human rights industry | Opinion
The largest social experiment in human history has exposed the human rights industry as one of the biggest intellectual shams we have ever witnessed.
Society must permanently co-sign human rights discourse to the realms of comedy or fiction.
The largest social experiment in human history has exposed the human rights industry as one of the biggest intellectual shams we have ever witnessed.
Human rights discourse is the orthodox moral (and increasingly legal) framework that has informed government policy since the UN invented the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 70 years ago.
The Declaration has been the springboard for the creation of countless legal instruments and government bodies. Three Australian jurisdictions (Victoria, Queensland and ACT) have enacted a Bill of Rights and taxpayers are burning millions to prop up the Australian Human Rights Commission.
The human rights industry once enthusiastically trumpeted the need for governments to give individuals a countless range of interests, including the right to privacy and freedom of conscience.
However, now they squander in the corner as our world is pillage by medical gangsters.
The catastrophe here is that the pandemic has sharpened the ‘collective intellect’ of governments and the broader community, while the ‘rational’ voices have bought the propaganda.
All governments have dealt with COVID in a manner that has totally ignored any appeals to human rights and instead have been guided by the only coherent moral objective: ‘the greater good’.
Every human right, no matter how supposedly “fundamental”, has been summarily swatted away in dealing with COVID.
The human body is conventionally regarded as inviolable. “My body, my choice” has for decades been a conversation stopper. At the same time, human rights warriors have been telling us the privacy of health records is an absolute right.
Yet, Australians must now infuse their body with a vaccine or incur suffering in the form of being sacked from work and denied entry to most amenities.
Assertions of fundamental rights by people who don’t want to be vaccinated are dismissively rejected. Moreover, lockdowns have violated our liberty, freedom of association and even freedom to engage in family relationships.
During this brutal assault on the human rights of every Australian, there has not been a whimper from the human rights industry – not even a “save human rights” Twitter hashtag.
The only right exercised is the right of silence.
And it is only getting worse.
A BRAVE NEW WORLD
The Victorian Public Health and Wellbeing (Pandemic Management) Bill introduced into the Victorian parliament on Tuesday is the most draconian legislation we’ve seen in this country.
It vests supreme unchecked power in one man (Dan Andrews) to detain people, restrict the movement of millions of people and shut businesses indefinitely by simply declaring a pandemic – even if there is not a single case of infection in Victoria.
So, why isn’t the army of human rights lawyers and scholars marching into court to protect the privacy and bodily rights of the vaccine-hesitant and save Melburnians from the longest liberty-denying lockdown on Earth?
There is only one answer. Their industry is illusory; an intellectual scam.
Rights arguments are simply won by the side with the most money or internet followers.
If rights discourse had the sparsest intellectual rigour, it would have provided a pathway for dealing with the myriad conflicting interests presented by the pandemic.
This would of included the need to protect people while at the same time recognising the importance of liberty and the need for work and education.
Instead, the theory has been totally impotent in solving anything.
Two hundred years ago, utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham declared the concept of human rights “nonsense on stilts”.
A few years later, JS Mill told the world there is no such thing as human rights.
Humanity was given the illusion of freedom while The Great Revolution was completed.
When the principles of freedom mattered most, they were abandoned by those who reportedly represented them.
This remains the high-water mark of human rights organisations and their co-opted messages.
Now, there is only one evaluative framework that can ethically and transparently inform difficult government and individual choices. One world. One order. No questions asked.
Australians, when faced with COVID, have nearly all of us have become utilitarian.
They disregard the rights of bodily integrity, and privacy of the vaccine-hesitant, because ‘society benefits if we are all vaccinated’. A distorted moral code where rights are a thing of the past.
The unmitigated pursuit of the ‘common good’ is the singular ideal that must inform societal choices, according to the new age religious Scientism fanatics.
It shouldn’t come as a surprise, however. Australia has been ranking increasingly lower on human rights scores in recent years,
I, for one, would like the right for taxpayers to be free from the self-serving human rights industry.
Charlatans, liars and traitors.
Let history never forget the inactive role these groups have taken.
COVER UP: Police Withhold Key Footage In Thomas Sewell Hearing
Incredible evidence was put forward on day 3 of the committal hearing for Thomas Sewell and Jacob Hersant. None of it confirmed the “official” story – that Sewell and Hersant smashed the windows of a car of hikers and used weapons to steal their phones. Instead the evidence strengthened suspicions of collusion between federal intelligence agencies, Victoria Police, the media and far left terrorists to engineer a situation which could be construed as armed robbery.
It was made clear that police knew of the planned camping trip well in advance. They had set up cameras to check number plates and link them to registered owners on the highway leading to the Cathedral Ranges. Police worked with counterterrorism, AFP, ASIO and Park Rangers on the day.
It appears that the group of EAM and NSN members were essentially constantly surveilled. One police officer interviewed even referred to “two burly men” she saw filming the group from behind bushes but she did not know what agency they were from. This video and audio has not been provided to the defence or the court, on the grounds of “Public Disclosure Anonymity”. They even refused to provide the name of the surveillance operation, claiming investigations were ongoing.
The implication of this refusal to provide crucial evidence is that there could be footage of the alleged incident which could prove either the guilt or innocence of the accused which is being withheld. This looks like the agencies involved have something to hide.
The same “Public Disclosure Anonymity” excuse was used to disrupt cross examination of police witnesses regarding the Channel 9 mole who had infiltrated the group.
Conveniently, the initial police informant who was involved in patrols on the day of the alleged incident was replaced with another officer of a lower rank, and they seemed to provide confused answers and suggested that the defence ask their colleague whenever the probing got too pertinent.
It was revealed that police documented that left wing communist Tom Tanku sent the alleged “victims” to confront NSN members resulting in the incident, and that they interviewed a known left wing activist at the scene who refused to give a statement.
At least one of the so-called witnesses, who cannot be identified, had prior knowledge of Thomas Sewell and his group.
Regarding evidence directly related to Sewell, a witness had yesterday claimed she pointed out Sewell in a photo line up, but today a police officer claimed that Sewell was never in a photo line up.
One of the key allegations against Sewell was that he smashed a window of the witness’s car, yet a doctor who examined his hand saw no bruising on his knuckles or forearm consistent with such an action and only found wounds on the palm.
Crucially, there was no identification of him at the scene at the time of the the alleged incident. There was confusion amongst the witnesses, both police and civilian, as to how many men were involved.
The judge has determined that there is sufficient evidence to place Mr Sewell and Mr Hersant on trial. Both men pleaded not guilty to the charges. They will next face the County Court of Melbourne for a directions hearing on November 29.
Given the following factors:
The involvement of multiple agencies in surveillance before the alleged incident. The refusal to provide this surveillance footage. The involvement of an undercover journalist. The refusal to answer any questions about this undercover journalist. The admission that far left activist Tom Tanuki sent far left activists to the site on the day. The fact that one of the the “witnesses” had prior knowledge of Thomas Sewell and his group.
This is looking more and more like a poorly planned and poorly executed operation to create an incident which could be used to provide a smoking gun to censure the group and general nationalist activism in Australia.
Witnesses Altering Statements 5 Months Later During Thomas Sewell Committal Hearing
By David Hiscox - October 29, 2021
Day two of the committal hearing for Thomas Sewell and Jacob Hersant revealed confused testimony from “witnesses” and continued poor communication from the prosecution.
It was unclear whether one witness statement had been emailed by the prosecution to the defence. More concerning was that “witnesses” were still amending their statements five months after they had been made.
While some of the amendments were simple typos, others included changes to the sequence of events and the nature of the events themselves. When queried under cross-examination why the amendments were being made five months after the fact, one “witness” claimed that police had told them they could not alter the details.
Another claimed that phrases were used in their witness statement they they would not usually use, indicating “editorialising” from police officers.
At the start of yesterday’s hearings, the prosecution complained that The XYZ was following events, suggesting that they are concerned that an honest recounting of events will be given to the public in which allegations are not merely presented as fact.
Given the confusion of witness testimony and indications of police and federal agency interference, particularly the involvement of the Channel 9 mole in the whole affair, this entire case has the air of incredibility.
ASSANGE EXTRADITION APPEAL HEARING DAY 2 --------- This multi-part thread will be dedicated to real-time coverage of day two, where Assange's Defense team will have their turn in court. --------- A crowd has gathered outside of the Court again, people and parlimentarians both are speaking on behalf of Julian. -------- Can Confirm: Expect to hear the Defense raise issues over the SAMS/ADX assurance, the CIA's control and influence over that possibility, and in relation to that; their now-exposed assassination plot. -------- Stella Morris (Julian's fiancée) and Wikileaks team just showed up at the Court. -------- Wikileaks current editor is speaking: (paraphrased in real time) Thanks crowd. Says day is important. Today is the day you will hear truth. "You will hear about the incredible illegality Julian has had to endure. Spying on legally privileged meetings, CIA stealing legal documents from Juoians Lawyers. His lawyers office broken into, the CIA bribing a witness to present false testimony. And confirmed plans to kidnap/assassinate him." ----- Stella Morris takes stage: (paraphrased in real time) Thanks audience. Discusses yesterday. Says it was painful to endure US empty argument. But today we will hear Julian's defense team's response to those empty claims, and about the plans to assassinate him. US White House refused comment, and referred people to the CIA, who also refused to comment. Congress is now investigating CIAs actions. Pompeo has confirmed the story, calls for prosecution of officers who leaked truth. Questions remain about UKs involvement in all of it. "We are talking about a journalist who took political asylum out of fear of US in the first place, after exposing the crimes of the US government. And was then kidnapped out of the very embassy in which he sought shelter, and then US indictment was revelead. I hope justice will be served" -------- An absolutely massive crowd has gathered outside the court, and are chanting loudly about freeing Julian ------- It seems there is a delay in opening the video/audio feed to journalists everywhere. ----- Per Reporter Without Borders rep., significantly more people than yesterday are being allowed into public gallery. ------ Both legal teams are in the court preparing. ------ Chief Justice Maldon and Lord Justice Holroyde are present now, having just entered the room. ------- Court begins ------- It seems Julian will not be attending today by video link, per his defense team. ------ Connection has gone live finally for journalists attending by remote link. ------- Judges say Julian does not have to attend, defense says Assange has chosen not to (by video link). Belmarsh misunderstood and brought him to the video room anyways. ------- Defense opens by arguing that district judge ruled in part based on the vectors of support keeping Julian alive (family) that would be removed via extradition. That this would occur regardless of SAMS/ADX designation. ------ There is a significantly larger number of journalists/MSM outlets covering today's proceeding. ---- Assange defense is driving home the point that his conditions would be repressive, based on mental health diagnosis, despite incarceration conditions. (Note* Defenses argument here relates to diagnosis by Dr. Deeley, a renowned neuropsychiatrist and expert on autism, who originally diagnosed Julian as being on that spectrum.) --------- Defense argues *all* incarceration in US system would, by default, require isolation of Julian and would effectively end his life. ---- Defense argues evidence is overwheleming that SAMS would be applied by US Gov. They state US Attorney Kromberg was quite clear here. ----- "This would not just happen in some far off future, but the very moment he landed" (defense referring to suicide risk and SAMS) ------- Defense argues that false assurances by US Gov do not at all remove the danger to Julians life, and that they cannot retroactively claim to change the district court's opinion based off of submissions given after the ruling.
Defense argues that district court judge defends her decision to choose what doctor's testimony carried the greatest weight in her decision process, every single time she made a decision. -------- Defense explains that Dr. Deeley, who made Assanges Autism diagnosis, was the only expert qualified to do so, the Prosecutions doctors were not experts in this field at all. Prosecution even consented to this fact in earlier moments, that Deeley was an expert in this field. -------- Defense is currently correcting misrepresentations by the prosecution yesterday around the "turner test" which relates to risk of suicide. ---- Defense argues that district judge declared her concern over public interest in Mr Assange's work and the effect it had *the largest leak in American history* ---- Defense discusses false sentencing assurances prosecution argued yesterday (they are seeking 175 years). Chelsea Manning revieved 35 year sentence. ------ Justice Holroyde interrupts here to defend the establishment for some reason, claims Lauri Love case found that he would not succeed in suicide attempt. Assanges defense says ample reason to be skeptical of those findings.
Note* chief justice presiding is the justice who oversaw Love's case, and eventually denied extradition. ------ Defense argues against the idea that district courts decision relied on grounds argued yesterday, that they related to his mental health, not potential prison conditions (ie. the false assurances presented) ------- Defense argues that "turner test" was correctly applied by the district judge ------ Defense again reiterates, regardless of SAMS designation, Assange would be placed in solitary conditions, and would commit suicide based on mental health condition. There is absolute medical history to confirm this, contrary to prosecution claims. ------ Defense is shredding the notion that future conditions and potential implications to a prisoners health should not be taken into account. The prosecution focused heavily on this argument yesterday. ------ Defense says the court only has to prove substantial risk of suicide, and that the turner test requires only the likelihood of success in doing so. The Court is aware of Julians condition and the expert diagnosis and testimony backing it, and it is therefore, to the letter of the law, opressive to extradite. Assurances by prosecution do not negate this fact. ------- Judge again interjects, asks defense if they are saying even if US guarantees safety measures are in place, would it still be opressive? Defense replies that standard protective measures are not enough, that parliament specifically lays this concept out in law. Tells judge "If my honorable friend wishes to change the law, that's fine"
(savage defense team comment there) ------- Defense says prosecution cannot simply put in witness statements and then refuse cross examination of statements while at the same time attempting to cross examine defense witnesses endlessly. -------- Defense remarks on the suicide that occurred whike Manning was imprisoned. Judge again interjects to question about theoretical proceedings should Assange be tried in UK ---- Defense raises again, the fact that US attorney Kromberg, on whose word the entire US argument is predicated, is somehow not able to be cross examined by the court, which seems a very valid and important point to make. ------- Defense brings up news reports of CIA plot to kill/kidnap Assange and embassy surveillance. Says based on these facts the risk to Julian's life is much higher. Claims US absolutely cannot gaurantee his safety based on this. ------ Note** Judge Holroyde is continually is interrupting the defense today. That is important to note, as he is deeply connected to the defense industry and we saw active CIA officers on the ground outside court yesterday*
Defense says it is important to actually follow the lower court's ruling when they rely on expert testimony, that this appeal hearing is not a retrial of earlier evidence, but demands the basis be the consideration of how the district court arrived at its decision within the confines of the law. ----- Defense argues that in Lauri love case, considerarion was given to future implications of health, contrary to prosecutions argument yesterday. That you cannot simply take a prisoner off suicide watch and declare them better. Discusses that in Loves case, it was found suicide watch and isolated conditions would have exacerbated the potential of suicide itself. ------- Defense reiterates that the US simply cannot appropriately gaurantee Assange's safety. ---- Defense points out that prosecution is misleading in saying no one commits suicide who is extradited from the UK to the US, argues that British law is meant to prevent this very happenstance. --------- Judges have asked that all cellphones be turned off in the public gallery, as they are a distraction. This obviously makes it difficult for reporters observing to offer live updates. (Live updates will continue here regardless of Judge's requests) ------- Defense reiterates that this is about both a mental health condition (autism) and major depressive disorder. And that the risk is obviosuly sufficiently great enough to prevent extradition to the US, despite the false assurances by the US prosecution. ---- Per Reporters Without Borders observing rep: reporters unable to continue live updates from within courtroom, says there were no distractions, unsure of Judges actual issue. ----------- Defense is beginning to address prosecutions statements on Dr. Kopelmans testimony (relating to their claims of inadmissiblity based on the censoring of Julian and Stellas relationship and children). ------ Defense states "The US has claimed and repeated and published this claim that the judge was misled by Dr. Kopelman, this is false" Defense argues that the district judge clearly outlined her understanding of this situation in great detail, and the concerns for their (Stella & Children's) safety. ------- Judge again interjects, says Kopelmans first report was misleading. Defense retorts that media reporting the court had been misled is not the same thing. Dr. Kopelman was faced with an ethical dilemma over the safety of Stella and her children and took legal advice over how to behave in that situation. It was a temporary expedient to safeguard these people, and Kopelman later explained his decision to the court in full. Assange also repeatedly made Dr. Blackwood (prosecution's doctor) aware of the fact that he had a relationship and two children, so the prosecution's claims of being unaware are moot and incorrect. -------- Note* During the period of time in which Dr. Kopelman refrained from identifying Stella morris and their two children. UC Global had been contracted through the CIA to spy on Assange in the embassy, and bugged it and was stalking her as well. IP addresses and travel logs directly connect UC global president David Morales to the EDVA itself. ----- Defense raises the fact that CIA was photocopying notes from Assange's defense team, stalking and seeking DNA from the childrens diapers, etc. They had discussed kidnapping/ and or poisoning Assange. Weapons had apparently been recovered that were subject to possible use against them. The distruct judge had to weigh these concerns and did so appropriately in her consideration and ruling. This threat was credible and had forced Stella to change addresses. The UC global operation had been reported on in Spanish media. Lawyer Gareth Pierce advised Dr. Kopelman not to divulge their identities as it might seriously endanger their lives.
Defense clarifies further. Absolutely none of the medical experts on this case took issue with Dr. Kopelmans actions, and all well understood the risk to the lives of Stella Morris and their then infant children. Morris even pled for anonymity at Julian's bail hearing, but was refused. ------ Judge asks about intent to protect their lives, defense explains that everything was explained in detail to the district judge before any verdict was ever granted, and before the district judge heard Dr. Kopelmans evidence. That there was no legal tavtical advantage in play, simply a basic consideration for their safety. The district judge admonished Kopelman's original reluctance to identify them in court paperwork, but said it was understandable given the situation. -------- Defense says district judge accepted that Dr. Kopelman was unbiased and acted in a wholly professional manner, and did not violate the court rules for expert witnesses based off of the original omission. (Note of opinion* Prosecution's focus on this is not to truly undermine the mental health diagnosis of Dr. Kopelman, but to try for a case remittance on technical error and have the case sent back to a lower court to retry it again and again, using the process to punish Julian) ------- Defense asks the court to understand the humane behavior of Dr. Kopelmam, as the original district judge ruled on and reasoned. ------- Defense again brings up the CIA plot to murder/kidnap Assange and says that former CIA Director Pompeo does not deny these plans whatsoever.
(Note* To paraphrase Pompeo in an interview, "there are parts of this report that are true") -------- Defense again addresses Kopelmans actions and says the district judge carefully considered them and found them not to breach the letter of law after considering the circumstances in full. ------ Defense labels US argument against Dr. Kopelman a miserable attempt to tarnish a globally respected neuropsychiatrist. -------- Defense discusses that the district judge fully explained her preference in every instance, for relying on Dr. Deeley, Dr. Kopelman, and Dr. Crosby's testimony as compared the the prosecutions doctor's. And that this does not denote bias, simply because it works against the prosecutions argument. District judge explained that prosecution's doctors did a much less thorough job and their evidence presented was simply much less compelling. Again, this is not bias but the proper exercise of judicial discretion. -------- Defense shreds offhand comments by prosecution on Dr. Crosby as "friend of Assange" "she is an expert on torture and PTSD from the US who is certified in Boston to make such psychiatric evaluations and was part of a wide team that evaluated Assange, she was not bias and took an interest based off the severity of the case itself".
Note* for those unaware. Dr. Crosby is world renowned for her work with victims of the Guantanamo Bay torture program. -------- Defense destroys prosecution's argument that US prisons are safer and have lower suicide rates than the UK.
Explains that difference in suicide rate is because the US incarcerates over 7 times the number of people that the UK does. Including a staggering number of low level drug offenders (sic* marijuana offenses implied) -------- Defense says, the court cannot re-litigate the opinion of medical experts to redefine their preference. The district judge clearly accepted the Austism expert Dr. Deeleys testimony that there was a seriously increased risk of suicide on Assange's part due to his Austism spectrum diagnosis. It isnt just an "impulse", but an unavoidable outcome driven by the disorder
Says Dr. Kopelman and Dr. Deeley clearly got it right. -------- Defense is discussing the prosecutions attacks on Nilz Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, who visited Assange in prison and consulted with a psychiatrist, and found Assange displayed symptoms of psychological torture ------ Defense touches back on ASD diagnosis, and explains it is not at all usual for the diagnosis to be made late in life. Also makes it clear that people with ASD are not unlikely to hold relationships (prosecution attempted to argue that Julian's family tending somehow disqualified this mental health diagnosis, for note* they also bizarrely argued, in part, that people with ASD shouldnt be allowed to have children). ------- *Court breaks for an hour lunch.*
After lunch, defense will further discuss the false "assurances" made, and the CIA's plot to kidnap/kill Julian (and other Wikileaks employees and volunteers). ----- Court is back in session ----- Defense is reading lawyer Gareth Peirce' letter to Dr. Kopelman advising him against divulging Stella and Julians infant children's identities, based on the dangerous reality they faced. Quotes are being read from UC Global President David Morales (the CIA contracted security company that bugged the embassy) wherein it is discussed that they were specifically targetting Stella and the children. (Note* UC Global is also part of an ongoing crimminal investigation based in Madrid for their actions here) -------- Defense again repeats that district judge was fully allowed to prefer one doctor's evidence over the other, and that she clearly explained why this was the case. It is not bias just because it does not favor the US Government's prosecution. Notes that none of the doctors officially found that Assange was "malingering" (faking). (Though one of the prosecution's doctors attempted to frame that in a published article about the case by alluding to it at a later date.) -------- Defense is switching up lawyers. Mr. Fitzgerald rests and Mr Summers takes over for presumably the remainder of the day. -------- Defense continues (Mr. Summers now)
says the US changed its position about prison conditions only after losing their argument and the denial being issued. Now they present "assurances".
"Genuine concerns about their trustworthiness" he says. -------- Defense questions the validity of the prosecution in altering their argument for extradition after two years with a mentally vulnerable defendant in their custody. Disparages "conditional" assurances made. ----- Defense accurately states the "assurances" do not remove the possibility of ADX or SAMS conditions at all anyways. ---- Judge Holroyde interjects, summarizes Fitzgeralds earlier words for the defense and suggest that 22 hours of solitary a day is not oppressive in terms of extradition proceedings. ------ Defense continues stating even if assurances actually disallowed ADX/SAMS conditions, there are genuine concerns around their trustworthiness based on the actions of US Agencies (CIA) ------- Defense raises, again, the fact that the US Gov waited two years, until *after* they were denied, to make *conditional* "assurances" for the process of appeal. And that there is no legal framework demanding the court let them unilaterally alter their argument after the case has been decided. -------- Defense says prosecutions claim that they were "not given an opportunity to submit such assurances before the original ruling" is simply untrue. The US had every opportunity to submit such paperwork but chose distinctively not to. ------ Defense references moments in earlier hearings on the case in which the possibility of SAMS was discussed and one witness said it was "likely" in Assanges case, the US chose not to bring up any such *conditional* "assurances". In fact, Kromberg (the US Attorney out of the EDVA), stated SAMS was "possible". -------- Defense discussing SAMS and *conditional* assurances. US attorney Kromberg's earlier argument specifically states SAMS are possible and are authorized on recommendations by the CIA. This entirely contradicts the prosecutions later claims made in their *conditional* "assurances" ------- Defense discusses Kromberg's lrevious fifth declaration, in which he doubled down on how "OK" SAMS conditions were, which led to expert witnesses being called on the subject to testify that they were indeed *not* ok. ------- **Note for those reading who are unaware Gordon Kromberg is the lead attorney for the US prosecution out of the EDVA, but has refused to directly appear in the case (this would open him for cross examination on statements made), instead issuing declarations that subordinate attorneys have relayed into the UK court as though it were biblical text amd oure fact. So when you hear Kromberg mentioned, this is why. --------- Defense points out what the world has recognized since the beginning, If the US wanted SAMS off the table, they would be off the table but these assurances leave them very much on it. ----- Judge again interjects and questions if it is significant that SAMS was a possible option, defense argues that the district judge certainly thought so. That the absence of real assurances is significant indeed. -------- Defense is building the argument here that until the US lost the case, they had been thoroughly behind the concept of SAMS beinf imposedon Assange. And that only after losing they summarily changed direction and context (this is not legally allowed by the prosecution on a case). And even then, they are still attempting to impose them on him. ------- Defense quotes Kromberg's earlier absurdist statement that prisoners in ADX supermax facilities can "crochet, write poetry, communicate, and recreate individually" (Note* ADX supermax, some of the most horrifying prisons in the world, where torture is a routine practice, sound like summer camp if we blindly trusted Kromberg) -------- Defense says the prosecution could have dealt with the issue of supermax readily and instead they chose conditional, qualified and aspirational attempts to push it. -------- The chief justice is complaining about the "expansive nature of evidence put before the district judge that was actually argument" (needless to say this has only become an issue with the case not going in the US favor). -------- Defense reminds the court that the AG and CIA are the very people who get to determine if Assange is placed in ADX/SAMS conditions. Begins to address the CIAs relationship to Assange. --------- Defense begins to reference the poot to kill Assange, the confressional investigation ooened into their illegal behavior; former CIA Director Pompeo's non-denial on the subject. Judge exclaims he is unsurprised US intelligence would "take an interest here". (An interesting way of framing an illegal murder plot in a court of law) ------ Defense is now quoting pieces of Yahoo chief investigative journalist Isakoff's investigation into the CIA plot to kidnap or kill Assange. ----- Defense is discussing what the CIA was prepared to do, and their designation of Wikileaks as a "hostile non-state intelligence agency". ----- Defense raises pertinent questions: how likely is the CIA to enact SAMS or ADX against Assange in order to prevent him directing further publications? ----- Defense says it is, given all this evidence, extremely likely that Assange will be placed under SAMS if he is extradited, regardless of whether that isolation would lead to his death; and notes again, the "assurances" made do not remove those options at all. In effect, the assurances are useless. --------- Defense raises the point that even if SAMS were removed, Assange would face 22 hours a day in solitary. --- Cont* Defense raises the case of Schulte, the alleged Vault 7 leak source as an example of repressive conditions being used to potentially supress information by use of SAMS. ------- Defense labels Krombergs statements on prison conditions impossible and implausible works of fiction based on the testimony of numerous witnesses. Discusses the prosecutions absurd claim that solitary isnt repressive because inmates can shout at each other through cell bars. -------- Defense says Administrative segregation / "protective" custody amount to essentially the same thing as SAMS, but with needing the designation. Assange would be subject (at least) to this for years, while awaiting trial. ---- Defense is going through a long list of prisoners who have been kept in solitary confinement incthe US for years, despite prosecutions claims that this practice doesn't happen. (Note** any solitary confinement lasting for more than 15 days is considered a form of torture, according to the UN's 2015 Mandela Rules on human confinement.) ------- Note* Outside the court a massive crowd of citizens has brought traffic to a standstill. ------- Defense is arguing the length of time ot takes to arrive at even pre-trial in the US, and the complications around Assange's case, and the fact that he would, regardless of SAMS or not, spend years in nearly total isolation. Defense is pointing out that the danger of isolation to Julian's health, is not specific to SAMS conditions, nor were such stipulations applied by medical experts. ---- defense remarks that regardless of SAMS conditions, the US intent to house Julian at one of three Supermax facilities is very clear. --- Defense says district judge clearly understood that SAMS or not, administrative segregation (such as Special Housing Units) would be applied; and therefore, even should the designation be off the table (which again, it is not), her ruling would not have changed. Both would remand him to an infinitely small isolated cell. ------ The defense argues that regardless of SAMS or ADX, the US will go so far as to build special prisons within a prison for certain offenders, and that Mr Assange would most certainly be subject to extreme isolation. *(I know you cant hear Mr Summers make these statements, but his passion and fire is clear here) ---- Defense states even in a case aquittal, as the prosecution fantasized yesterday, Kromberg would be able to charge Assange with civil contempt and imprison him anyway. ------ Defense says claims of no suicides in ADC are out of date, prisoner Christopher Lamb recently succeeded. Note* (We can add Skyland Harris, David Shabazz, Aaron Rodriguez Christopher Potts, Calvin Hammock, and Demeckus Singleton to that list. All were found having committed suicide by hanging in ADC facilities in 2020) ------- Judge is questioning defense on the Manning case because she got a very long sentence (35 years). Would Julian be subject to this same sentencing?
Sentencing guidelines would create a life sentence for Julian here. ------ Defense is wrapping up here, Says it doesnt matter what assurances are made, because the end result of extradition is always the same in Assange's case. Whether by SAMS and ADX, or whether by Administrative Segregation, or SHU, or Communications Managememt Units, they all end in extreme isolation, and Julian's suicide. ---- Defense mentions a Spanish case in which a prisoner was extradited under the assurance they would be returned. The US then refused to send their citizen back. The Country is still litigating this. -------- Judge asks about the US assurances in this case, the Defense says the term only means the US prosecutor and that the same argument used by the US to refuse their assurances given to Spain, could be used in this case as well. ------
-------- Defense is beginning to wrap up for the day, and the prosecution will have a half hour for rebuttal. ---- Some clarification is being made to one of the judges, by the Defense, over the false assurance of a prisoner transfer to Australia. ---- Defense again raises the Hamza situation, in which the handless, one eyed man was rendered into US custody by the european courts, under the US promise that SAMS and ADX were "highly unlikely" and then was immediately placed in those conditions (where he remains to this day). The US has been accused of refusing to help him shower or brush his teeth, and penalizing him (adding an entire year of SAMS) for attempting to pass a crudely scrawled happy birthday note to someone for his one year old grandson. ------ Defense ends by saying nothing about this case is normal, the requesting state (the US) has contemplated if not outright plotted to kidnap and murder the defendant. There must be an inquiry into their trustworthiness where this court finds their assurances acceptable. ----- Prosecution now has the floor for 30 minutes. ----- Prosecution opens by arguing that all assurances are naturally "reactive" (Word salad term meaning non-binding and pointless). ------ Prosecution argues Manning was tried by court martial and therefore her sentence shouldn't weigh in here ---- Prosecution claims the defense has shown no realcrisk of ADX and SAMS and that such things are "speculative in nature". (Note* prosecution is basically outright lying at this point in their argument) ------ Prosecution is now reiterating the false assurances as though they really do exist. Says they are not problematic. Also claims that the US could start the extradition process all over again with assurances (This is unequivocally false, and also a disturbing statement in general as a representation of drastic abuse of power) ------- Prosecutions says no assurances are without condition. (Meaning assurances are false promises everytime they are made. A conditional assurance, is not an assurance) ---- Prosecution is arguing, again, that solitary in the US is limited due to occasional meetings with a lawyer, (through a door mind you, with a tiny little window) (the "prison is just like summer camp" fantasy seems to be popular with them) ------- Note* Missing from the prosecution's rebuttal, is any mention that Assange will not be placed under SAMS conditions, period. Because their intention is to do so immediately upon obtaining him. The *conditional* "assurances" exist only to reassure a legal framework. ------ Prosecution outright lies and says the US has never gone back on any diplomatic assurance ever. ---------- Prosecution refers to Assange's suicide risk as a "suicide ideology" that is reduced by the false assurances
Note* this is a sick and purposeful misrepresentation of mental health conditions suffered by people with ASD, and should infuriate every medical professional and person alive who takes the suicide risk of mentally vulnerable people seriously. ------ For some reason, the High court has just extended the prosecutions time to rant by 5 more minutes. ---- Prosecution resumes attacking the Kopelman omission (conveniently leaving out the CIA stalking Stella and endangering their lives). ----- Prosecution has spent 35 minutes arguing everything the defense spent all day tearing apart. (Opinion* The prosecution seems to live in a fixed alternate reality where facts have no bearing on their words or ideology.) ------ Court has adjourned.
The justices will confer and rule. No immediate judgement was issued.
BREAKING: Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issues emergency halt to Biden’s unconstitutional vaccine mandate
After reviewing an emergency lawsuit now involving 19 states that are suing the Biden administration for executive overreach with the unconstitutional vaccine mandate, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued an emergency stay.
“Because the petitions give cause to believe there are grave statutory and constitutional issues with the mandate, the mandate is hereby STAYED pending further action by this court,” said the court in a brief order viewable here.
“Petitioners said the mandate, promulgated as an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) by the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), should be struck down because it exceeds OSHA’s authority under the Occupational Safety and Health Act,” reports The Epoch Times.
“Emergency hearings will take place soon,” tweeted Texas Governor Greg Abbott, celebrating the decision. The Epoch Times adds:
“The court’s action not only halts Biden from moving forward with his unlawful overreach, but it also commands the judicious review we sought. The president will not impose medical procedures on the American people without the checks and balances afforded by the Constitution,” added Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, a Republican and one of the petitioners.
The Biden vaccine “mandate” has no basis in law and no basis in science. A steady stream of published scientific studies has long demonstrated that vaccines do not prevent the spread of covid. In fact, the latest “VE” rating — Vaccine Effectiveness — to come out of UK data shows the VE to be a negative number of minus 73 percent. This means people who take the vaccine have an increased risk of hospitalizations and deaths compared to those who avoid the vaccine.
If anything, vaccinated people are the “super spreaders” who should be isolating at home. A published science study carried out by the University of Oxford’s Clinical Research Group discovered that vaccinated people carry 251 times higher viral loads in their nostrils, allowing them to spread the virus to others.
The real danger to public health, it turns out, are vaccinated people, not the unvaccinated.
Gov. Abbott chimed in about the Fifth Circuit decision, saying, “We will have our day in court to strike down Biden’s unconstitutional abuse of authority.”
BREAKING: The Federal Court of Appeals just issued a temporary halt to Biden’s vaccine mandate.
Emergency hearings will take place soon.
We will have our day in court to strike down Biden’s unconstitutional abuse of authority. pic.twitter.com/8utmU05vw3
— Greg Abbott (@gregabbott_TX) November 6, 2021
Vaccine mandates will destroy America’s economy and lead to catastrophic product shortages
Today I was told by a contact in law enforcement that around half of US federal prison correctional officers are planning to quit in early January if the vaccine mandate is enforced. We’re also hearing similar numbers among police officers, firefighters, sheriff’s deputies and other first responders.
Employees of Proctor & Gamble — the company that manufacturers most of the toxic personal care products that ignorant people put on their skin and then wonder why they have cancer — have posted an eerie video that essentially claims they will walk away from the company en masse and bring P&G to its knees over the vaccine mandate:
Vaccine mandates, if upheld, would establish literal SLAVERY in America where someone else owns your body
In December of 2020, Joe Biden promised he would never push mask mandates or vaccine mandates. That promise didn’t last very long, and now Biden apparently believes that the government owns your body and can order you to do its bidding. If we do not have control over our own bodies, then we are government property… i.e. medical slaves with no rights whatsoever.
The right to control your own body is the most basic human right from which most other rights spring. For starters, if we do not own our own bodies, how can we responsible for the actions of our bodies? This means that if the government claims to have ownership over your body, no person can logically be charged with a violent crime, since the responsibility for the violence must rest on the owner of the body that carried it out. Put another way, if the government claims to own your body, the entire system of law and justice becomes null and void because no person can be said to be responsible for the actions carried out by a body which they do not own.
Furthermore, if the government claims to own your body, then it also claims ownership of your children. This explains why big government enthusiasts already believe that parents should have no role whatsoever in the education of their own children. Instead, they say your children “belong” to the state.
The legal answer to all this ultimately falls to the US Supreme Court. Even though Trump managed to install three justices during his term, those individuals (Kavanaugh, Barrett and Gorsuch) have so far demonstrated very little in the way of recognizing individual liberty as a guiding principle. Should SCOTUS decide that vaccine mandates are somehow constitutional, it will no doubt spark a mass uprising, widespread state-led nullification efforts and possibly a civil war.
If SCOTUS doesn’t think we own our own bodies, then SCOTUS has lost all remaining credibility and has no more useful function in a supposedly “free” society. If you don’t own your body, you can never be free. The Supreme Court, if it nullifies personal ownership of our own bodies, would also nullify its own credibility since it would be placing itself in the position of reestablishing slavery and segregation across America.
Not surprisingly, the same political party that once pushed slavery and the KKK — the Democrats — is once again pushing medical slavery and government ownership of your body.
All who value freedom must reject medical slavery and any so-called “authority” that claims ownership over your body. We reject slavery in all its forms, including medical slavery.
This is why I don't even watch alt news anymore. They don't practice what they preach.
Newsmax TV Tells Staff It Will Implement Vaccine Mandate
Conservative news outlet Newsmax, which some of the network’s hosts have been known to be extremely critical of vaccine mandates, is reportedly enforcing the OSHA-led vaccine mandate on all their employees.
News outlet Mediaite had reportedly obtained an internal email distributed to Newsmax employees that informed them that they must comply with the impending vaccine mandate being enforced by OSHA.
Newsmax employees were informed that they either need to be fully vaccinated by January 4th or be forced to undergo weekly testing for COVID.
“To ensure that we are in compliance, we require that all vaccinated employees submit a copy of their vaccination card.”
Chances are, this latest decision is not going to be received well with some of the staff – particularly some of the network’s hosts. As recently as November 4th, Newsmax host Steve Cortes engaged in a sort of diatribe rallying against vaccine mandates.
“There is zero, and I mean zero, moral or ethical obligation for anyone to be compelled to get vaccinated,” Cortes later added that the soon-to-be OSHA-enforced workplace mandate is “insane workplace discrimination.”
Newsmax has already endured scrutiny over recently taking one of their employees off the air earlier in November, White House correspondent Emerald Robinson. link
Meet Brandon Trosclair, The Business Owner Credited for Getting The Federal Court to Freeze Biden’s Vaccine Mandate
Brandon Trosclair, a native of Louisiana and an owner of a chain of supermarkets, is credited with having been instrumental in getting the Federal Appeals Court to block President Biden’s vaccine mandate.
Trosclair launched his own lawsuit, on behalf of his own company, BST Holdings LLC, and against the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the government entity which had issued the mandate. The lawsuit alleges that OSHA does not have the legal authority to issue such a mandate, while also mentioning constitutional issues.
According to the Liberty Justice Center’s website, “supermarket employees like Trosclair’s and other essential workers who braved the pandemic and were once hailed as heroes now face losing their jobs if they don’t comply with the government’s demands. And this is despite the fact they are not government employees, but are employed by private businesses.”
“I am faced with an incomprehensible choice imposed upon me by the federal government: force these workers, whose dedication and skills have fueled my business’s success, to take the COVID vaccine – or show them the door,” commented Trosclair on the subject. Brandon Trosclair is a husband, and father of two who’s involved in his community. A second generation supermarket owner who employs several hundred people, Trosclair feels grateful not only to be living the American dream but to also be able to provide his employees opportunities to live out their own versions of the American Dream.
Following the court’s ruling on the vaccine mandate, Trosclair, who employs nearly 500 people across 15 grocery stores in Louisiana and Mississippi said, “This is an incredible first victory for all Americans that the Fifth Circuit so quickly realized that the Biden employer vaccine mandate would cause great harm to businesses like mine. As the legal process continues, I look forward to sharing more of my story. This stay is a great first step by the court.” link
Fair Use Notice: This website may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes only. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law.