The warning is, "If you dare to expose the misdeeds of the empire, you will be
hunted down, imprisoned, defamed, and murdered!"
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 7:10 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Judge Denies Request to Unseal Assange Criminal
Complaint Saying There is No Proof it Exists
This should be a strong warning to all Working Class Citizens. There is no
such thing as, "Justice for All" in the United States of America. Laws are
made and passed to support and protect the Ruling Class.
If you are not a member of the Ruling Class, do not believe that you will
receive fair treatment in the eyes of the Law. Never!
Carl Jarvis
On 1/31/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Judge Denies Request to Unseal Assange Criminal Complaint Saying There
is No Proof it Exists January 31, 2019 Judge Leonie Brinkema has
denied an application from the Reporters'
Committee for Freedom of the Press to unseal the U.S. government's
complaint against WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange.
By Joe Lauria
Special to Consortium News
A U.S. federal judge has ruled against a petition to unseal a criminal
complaint against WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange, arguing that
there is no proof that it exists.
Judge Leonie Brinkema of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia decided on Wednesday to turn down the
request by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press to make
public details of the complaint, the existence of which was made known
inadvertently last year.
"The Government opposes the Committee's application on the ground that
it has neither confirmed nor denied whether charges have been filed
against Assange and cannot be required to disclose that information
before an arrest is made," Brinkema wrote in her 10-page ruling.
Assange's named appeared in a totally unrelated criminal complaint,
apparently from a copy and paste mistake. The government called it an
"unintentional error."
Brinkema ruled that despite the government's admission of the error,
"The Government has not acknowledged whether formal charges have been
filed against Assange and the Committee has not cited any authority
supporting the notion that the public has a right to require the
Government to confirm or deny that it has charged someone."
Assange: Remains a refugee inside Ecuador Embassy
The Reporters Committee argued in a motion that the "case against
Assange is already a matter of public knowledge" and that the
government cannot "put the genie back" in the bottle. But the
government argued in a court hearing in November that the only
conclusion that can be drawn from its admission is that a mistake was
made and "anything else is speculation."
Brinkema came down on the side of the government. "The Committee has
not demonstrated with sufficient certainty that Assange has been
charged," she wrote.
The judge ruled:
"Until there is a sufficiently certain disclosure that charges have in
fact been filed, the Committee's common law and First Amendment claims
are premature. To hold otherwise would mean that any member of the
public or press-by demanding access to judicial records based on
little more than speculation-could effectively force the Government to
admit or deny that charges had been filed."
The Inadvertent Paragraphs
Brinkema pointed to the two paragraphs in which Assange is mentioned
in the unrelated case. The paragraphs read:
"The United States has considered alternatives less drastic than
sealing, including, for example, the possibility of redactions, and
has determined that none would suffice to protect this investigation.
Another procedure short of sealing will not adequately protect the
needs of law enforcement at this time because, due to the
sophistication of the defendant and the publicity surrounding the
case, no other procedure is likely to keep confidential the fact that
Assange has been charged.
"The complaint, supporting affidavit, and arrest warrant, as well as
this motion and the proposed order, would need to remain sealed until
Assange is arrested in connection with the charges in the criminal
complaint and can therefore no longer evade or avoid arrest and extradition
in this matter."
Brinkema: Not convinced paragraphs are evidence of complaint against
Assange.
In her ruling, Brinkema wrote: ". news outlets and social media users
noticed the two references to 'Assange' and surmised that the
Government had instituted criminal charges against Julian Assange, the
well-known founder of WikiLeaks, though there is no public record of
such charges having been filed."
She said her decision "lies at the intersection of two weighty interests."
The first is the government's "need to be able to investigate criminal
activity and successfully bring to justice those charged with criminal
conduct."
The second is the public's "right to access judicial records and
proceedings, which is an indispensable feature of the American justice
system."
That public right is not "absolute," Brinkema wrote and may be "rebutted"
if
the need to seal outweighs the public's interest.
The judge wrote:
"Of course, that a judicial record is subject to the right of access
does not mean that the public is entitled to inspect the record at all
times and in every case. To the contrary, that the right is
presumptive means that it may be overcome, in favor of nondisclosure or
sealing, where appropriate.
This is usually the case before a charged person has been arrested
because of the government's well-established interests in preventing
the accused from avoiding arrest, destroying or tampering with
evidence, or otherwise interfering with the prosecution; securing
privacy rights or confidential sources of information; and protecting the
public.
Although the Government recognizes that First Amendment
right-to-access analysis typically depends on what 'type of document'
is being sought, it asserts that courts must also consider the 'stage
at which public access is sought,' and specifically it argues that
there is no First Amendment right to access charging documents 'before an
arrest.'"
Assange has been a refugee in the Ecuador Embassy in London since 2012
fearing that if he re-entered British territory he would be arrested
and extradited to the United States to face charges that Brinkema says
there is no evidence of. Senior U.S. officials have called for
Assange's arrest after WikiLeaks published classified documents
revealing evidence of U.S. war crimes and corruption.
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former
correspondent for The