Category Archives: Civil rights

Michael Flynn motion hearing Sept 29, 2020 video teleconference, Judge Emmett Sullivan, oral argument from  government, Flynn, and amicus curiae

Michael Flynn motion hearing Sept 29, 2020 video teleconference, Judge Emmett Sullivan, oral argument from  government, Flynn, and amicus curiae

“Instead of doing so, the government has continued to defy its
constitutional, ethical and legal obligations to this Court and to the defense, and to hide evidence that it knows exonerates Mr. Flynn. As is the essence of the problem here, instead of protecting its citizens, the “government” is protecting its own criminal conduct and operatives.”…Attorney Sidney Powell October

“her client was “totally set up” because he threatened to expose wrongdoing by top intelligence officials in the Obama administration.

“He was going to audit the intel agencies because he knew about the billions Brennan and company were running off the books,” Powell said, referring to former CIA Director John Brennan.”…Sidney Powell, Vickie McKenna Show

On Judge Sullivan: “if there was any doubt up to this point whether his conduct gives the appearance of partiality, that doubt is gone.”...Judge Rao dissenting opinion

 

From US v Michael Flynn.

“MINUTE ORDER as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN. In view of the motion hearing on September 29, 2020, the Court shall hear oral argument from the government, Mr. Flynn, and the Court-appointed amicus curiae. See L. Civ. R. 7(o)(6) (“An amicus curiae may participate in oral argument only with the court’s permission.”); see also United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 737 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 9/23/2020. (lcegs3)”

“MINUTE ORDER as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN. The motion hearing scheduled for September 29, 2020 at 11:00 AM shall now take place via VIDEO TELECONFERENCE (VTC). The Courtroom Deputy Clerk shall contact the parties to provide the dial-in information. The public and media may listen to the hearing by dialing in to one of the following teleconference numbers and entering the access code when prompted: 877-336-1839 (access code 5524636); 888-363-4734 (access code 6114909); 877-336-1839 (access code 1429888); 877-402-9753 (access code 2090166); 888-557-8511 (access code 4140864); 888-273-3658 (access code 1773796). Persons joining via teleconference will be automatically muted and will not be heard by the Court or participants in the hearing. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 9/25/2020. (lcegs3)”

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6234142/united-states-v-flynn/?page=3

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissent right about mandated arbitration, “insulated powerful economic interests from liability”, Thrivent powerful example

Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissent right about mandated arbitration, “insulated powerful economic interests from liability”, Thrivent powerful example

“Thrivent contends that its commitment to individual arbitration is ‘”important to the membership because it reflects Thrivent’s Christian Common Bond, helps preserve members’ fraternal relationships, and avoids protracted and adversarial litigation that could undermine Thrivent’s core mission.’”…Thrivent v. Acosta Nov. 3, 2017

“pre-dispute mandatory arbitration provisions are inappropriate in insurance policies and incompatible with the legal duties insurers owe policyholders when handling their claims.”…NAIC, National Association of Insurance Commissioners, August 15, 2016

“I worked at Thrivent Financial full-time (More than 8 years)”                      “Claims to be based on Christian values but does not adhere to them.”…Former Thrivent employee

 

I got quite an education at an enormous financial and emotional cost when I filed claims with Thrivent Financial (for Lutherans) on 2 occasions.

They retroactively changed the contract on a disability policy I paid on religiously for 25 years to require mandated dispute resolution including arbitration.

They committed documented fraud on both occasions and demanded that even fraud go to arbitration.

They took away my day in court.

From Citizen Wells July 1, 2018.

“People around me and online may try to put me in a nice neat box such as Republican.

I do not fit.

What I am is an American who adheres to the US Constitution and rule of law.

I am not against arbitration on principle. Mutually agreed to.

I am against forced, mandated arbitration which strips away one of our basic rights.

Our day in court.”

“The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that companies can use arbitration clauses in employment contracts to prohibit workers from banding together to take legal action over workplace issues.

The vote was 5 to 4, with the court’s more conservative justices in the majority. The court’s decision could affect some 25 million employment contracts.”

“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg read her dissent from the bench, a sign of profound disagreement. In her written dissent, she called the majority opinion “egregiously wrong.” In her oral statement, she said the upshot of the decision “will be huge under-enforcement of federal and state statutes designed to advance the well being of vulnerable workers.””

““Under those contracts, Justice Ginsburg wrote, it is often not worth it and potentially dangerous to pursue small claims individually. “By joining hands in litigation, workers can spread the costs of litigation and reduce the risk of employer retaliation,” she wrote.

The contracts may also encourage misconduct, Justice Ginsburg wrote.

“Employers, aware that employees will be disinclined to pursue small-value claims when confined to proceeding one-by-one, will no doubt perceive that the cost-benefit balance of underpaying workers tips heavily in favor of skirting legal obligations,” she wrote, adding that billions of dollars in underpaid wages are at issue.”

“In a 2015 dissent, Justice Ginsburg, citing a New York Times article examining arbitration agreements, wrote that the 2011 decision and later ones “have predictably resulted in the deprivation of consumers’ rights to seek redress for losses, and, turning the coin, they have insulated powerful economic interests from liability for violations of consumer protection laws.””

https://citizenwells.com/2018/07/01/us-supreme-court-decision-to-uphold-mandated-arbitration-further-erodes-our-rights-our-day-in-court-deprivation-of-consumers-rights-to-seek-redress-for-losses/

From Citizen Wells March 26, 2019.

“From Insurance Business Magazine.

Clicking “accept” on a company’s terms and conditions – something we do daily to use and pay for products and services – usually subjects us to lengthy contractual agreements, many of which contain mandatory arbitration clauses. Proponents of arbitration might think it’s the greatest thing since whole wheat artisanal sliced bread, but mandating arbitration in consumer contracts is troublesome, and it has no place in insurance policies for individuals and small businesses.”

“However, placing mandatory arbitration clauses in insurance policies restructures this crucial aspect of the insurer-insured relationship. Companies presumably employ pre-dispute mandatory arbitration provisions because they believe arbitration generally benefits them – and a growing amount of research suggests they are right.”

“From the NAIC, The National Association of Insurance Commissioners, August 15, 2016.

“Why arbitration clauses should be banned”

“Insurers that would insist on mandatory arbitration of policyholder disputes have selected the forum that they believe will be more favorable to them than to their policyholders, if not on each individual claim then in the aggregate. However, manipulating the dispute resolution process in this manner conflicts with the duties insurers owe their policyholders and is not holding their policyholders’ interests “at least equal to their own.”

If arbitration was truly a neutral forum rather than one favoring insurers, then there would be no need for an insurer to insist on its use before a dispute has even arisen.”

https://citizenwells.com/2019/03/26/mandated-arbitration-has-no-place-in-insurance-policies-for-individuals-naic-reviewing-mccarran-ferguson-act-allows-states-to-regulate-arbitration-in-insurance-over-federal-arbitration-act-faa/

Arbitration can be a valuable tool. But it should not be mandated.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg  was right.

God bless.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Assange “suffering from severe depression”, High risk of suicide “if extradition appears imminent.”, Witness Prof. Michael Kopelman September 22, 2020

Assange “suffering from severe depression”, High risk of suicide “if extradition appears imminent.”, Witness Prof. Michael Kopelman September 22, 2020

“Replying to this last point, the prosecution pointed out that a Grand Jury against Assange had been established by Obama and there was no indication the investigation had been closed. Feldstein agreed, the “Obama administration was very eager to file charges against Assange and they conducted a very aggressive investigation.” All of which speaks for the point that Assange is being sought for political reasons—motivations which are common to the whole American ruling class. It was current Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden who branded the WikiLeaks publisher and journalist a “high-tech terrorist.””…Laura Tiernan and Thomas Scripps, Sept 9, 2020

“Why John Brennan, Peter Strzok and DOJ Needed Julian Assange Arrested”…The Conservative Treehouse November 3, 2019

 

 

From Consortium News September 22, 2020.

“6:35 am EDT: Court is in session.  Prof. Michael Kopelman has been sworn in, standing in the actual wooden stand of the court, as the defense’s first witness on Tuesday.  Kopelman is a professor of neuropsychology at King’s College, London. He testifies that Assange is suffering from severe depression with loss sleep, appetite and weight loss. He also found a high risk of suicide “if extradition appears imminent.”  Kopelman said Assange has had a history of clinical depression and said his risk of suicide would increase if extradition was imminent.

Consortium News is limiting the detail of testimony about Assange’s mental health conditions after an appeal from Kopelman and defense attorney Edward Fitzgerald to the media to do so.

Of all the efforts of the defense to prevent Assange’s extradition, this testimony might have the greatest effect on the court. Ruling against extradition on medical grounds would it seems bypass the political controversies in this case.

Cross 

On cross examination Lewis is trying to question Kopleman’s credentials, saying he was not a forsenic psychiatrist, who work in prisons. Kopelman retorted that he had spent time in many prisons and that even Lewis had once urgently called upon him for his expert testimony in an extradition case. That brought laughter in the courtroom, even from Judge Baraitser.”

Read more:

https://consortiumnews.com/2020/09/22/live-updates-assange-hearing-day-eleven-doctor-testifies-assange-suffers-from-severe-depression-with-high-risk-of-suicide/

 

“That is what has brought you here. You are here because you have failed in humility, in self-discipline. You would not make the act of submission which is the price of sanity. You preferred to be a lunatic, a minority of one. Only the disciplined mind can see reality, Winston. You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident. When you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same thing as you. But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. That is the fact that you have got to relearn, Winston. It needs an act of self-destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before you can become sane.”…George Orwell, 1984

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

Attorney General Barr on passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg September 18, 2020, “Her legal ability, personal integrity, and determination were beyond doubt”

Attorney General Barr on passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg September 18, 2020, “Her legal ability, personal integrity, and determination were beyond doubt”

“In a 2015 dissent, Justice Ginsburg, citing a New York Times article examining arbitration agreements, wrote that the 2011 decision and later ones “have predictably resulted in the deprivation of consumers’ rights to seek redress for losses, and, turning the coin, they have insulated powerful economic interests from liability for violations of consumer protection laws.””...NY Times May 21, 2018

“Having experienced the abuse of mandated arbitration first hand, I agree with Justice Ginsburg. It may be the only time it happens, but injustice is injustice.”...Citizen Wells

 

From Attorney General William P. Barr September 18, 2020.

“On behalf of the Department of Justice, I extend my deepest sympathy on the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Justice Ginsburg led one of the great lives in the history of American law.  She was a brilliant and successful litigator, an admired court of appeals judge, and a profoundly influential Supreme Court Justice.  For all her achievements in those roles, she will perhaps be remembered most for inspiring women in the legal profession and beyond.  She and I did not agree on every issue, but her legal ability, personal integrity, and determination were beyond doubt.  She leaves a towering legacy, and all who seek justice mourn her loss.”

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-william-p-barr-passing-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Assange extradition prosecution pushed by deep state Obama holdovers, Glenn Greenwald: Rice, Brennan, Comey and Clapper exposed by Assange and Snowden

Assange extradition prosecution pushed by deep state Obama holdovers, Glenn Greenwald: Rice, Brennan, Comey and Clapper exposed by Assange and Snowden

“Replying to this last point, the prosecution pointed out that a Grand Jury against Assange had been established by Obama and there was no indication the investigation had been closed. Feldstein agreed, the “Obama administration was very eager to file charges against Assange and they conducted a very aggressive investigation.” All of which speaks for the point that Assange is being sought for political reasons—motivations which are common to the whole American ruling class. It was current Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden who branded the WikiLeaks publisher and journalist a “high-tech terrorist.””…Laura Tiernan and Thomas Scripps, Sept 9, 2020

“Why John Brennan, Peter Strzok and DOJ Needed Julian Assange Arrested”…The Conservative Treehouse November 3, 2019

“Assange testimony requested in Rich v Butowsky et al  August 24, 2020”…Citizen Wells

 

Where there is smoke there is fire.

So it is with the deep state Democrats, the left.

They are absolute masters of diversions.

Almost the entire period of the Trump Presidency, they have diverted attention away from the DNC leaks and what they revealed.

We now know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the narrative of the Russian hack and collusion is false, fabricated by the deep state.

The last remaining piece of the puzzle is who did it.

Julian Assange is the one person who knows for sure where he got the data.

A mountain of circumstantial evidence points to Seth Rich.

At least 4 prominent court cases have been dragging on and have issued requests for testimony from Julian Assange.

High powered law firms have aided the Rich family.

The obvious intent is to drag this also past the election cycle.

Ellen Ratner, former journalist who met with Julian Assange, was told it was an inside job. She has finally responded after 6 subpoena attempts with sealed documents.

See a trend?

So who is pushing the control of, the extradition, the prosecution, the persecution of Julian Assange?

We were told the Obama Administration dropped this effort.

But we have also witnessed the Obama Administration appointed or controlled DOJ officials who are anti Trump and beholden to the deep state.

Here are just 2 for starters.

Megan Brown.

From CBC May 10, 2017.

“Megan Brown, a Washington lawyer who formerly worked at the Department of Justice and also with Rosenstein, believes the main challenge will be intense confirmation hearings she expects will take an “extraordinarily political and partisan” tone.
Although the future of the Trump-Russia probe itself could be thrown into question, Brown is nevertheless confident the Department of Justice will proceed with the investigation “without improper influence or any unnecessary delay” due to a change at the top of the bureau.”

From the US v Assange Affidavit in support of a Criminal Complaint and Arrest Warrant December 21, 2017.

“I, Megan Brown, make this affidavit in support of a criminal complaint”

“I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation (FBI) and have
been so employed since February 2011.”

“The facts in this Affidavit are based on my personal observations, information
obtained from other agents and witnesses, my training and experience, and my review ofrecords, reports, articles, and websites.”

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.384245/gov.uscourts.vaed.384245.2.0_3.pdf

Tracy Doherty-McCormick.

From the Washington Post April 20, 2017.

“Assistant U.S. Attorney Tracy Doherty-McCormick, who examined the case under the Obama administration, also has been working on the matter in recent weeks, officials said.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-dept-debating-charges-against-wikileaks-members-in-revelations-of-diplomatic-cia-materials/2017/04/20/32b15336-2548-11e7-a1b3-faff0034e2de_story.html

Tracy Doherty-McCormick’s name is prominent on the legal filings in this case.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14488287/united-states-v-assange/

Glenn Grenwald nails it on a recent Tucker Carlson interview.

Tucker investigates why ‘DOJ is pursuing Julian Assange aggressively’

Some of Glenn Greenwald’s statements:

“He exposed the lies that James Clapper told”
“and obviously this isn’t coming from President Trump.”
“This is coming from people who work in the CIA, who work in the Pentagon…who believe they’re a government unto themselves”
“They’re punishing Julian Assange and trying to punish Edward Snowden for informing the public about things they have a right to know about the Obama Administration.”
“The only people who would be angry would be Susan Rice, John Brennan, Jim Comey and James Clapper because they’re the ones who both of them expose.”

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

John Gleeson Flynn reply brief September 11, 2020, What level of quid pro quo is Gleeson receiving to promote this level of outrageous unconstitutional attack?

John Gleeson Flynn reply brief September 11, 2020, What level of quid pro quo is Gleeson receiving to promote this level of outrageous unconstitutional attack?

“Instead of doing so, the government has continued to defy its
constitutional, ethical and legal obligations to this Court and to the defense, and to hide evidence that it knows exonerates Mr. Flynn. As is the essence of the problem here, instead of protecting its citizens, the “government” is protecting its own criminal conduct and operatives.”…Attorney Sidney Powell October

“her client was “totally set up” because he threatened to expose wrongdoing by top intelligence officials in the Obama administration.

“He was going to audit the intel agencies because he knew about the billions Brennan and company were running off the books,” Powell said, referring to former CIA Director John Brennan.”…Sidney Powell, Vickie McKenna Show

On Judge Sullivan: “if there was any doubt up to this point whether his conduct gives the appearance of partiality, that doubt is gone.”...Judge Rao dissenting opinion

 

From the

REPLY BRIEF FOR COURT-APPOINTED AMICUS CURIAE

filed by John Gleeson September 11, 2020.

“To describe the Government’s Motion to Dismiss as irregular would be a study in understatement. In the United States, Presidents do not orchestrate pressure campaigns to get the Justice Department to drop charges against defendants who have pleaded guilty—twice, before two different judges—and whose guilt is obvious. And the Justice Department does not seek to dismiss criminal charges on grounds riddled with legal and factual error, then argue that the
validity of those grounds cannot even be briefed to the Court that accepted the defendant’s guilty plea. Nor does the Justice Department make a practice of attacking its own prior filings in a case, as well as judicial opinions ruling in its favor, all while asserting that the normal rules should be set aside for a defendant who is openly favored by the President

Yet that is exactly what has unfolded here. There is clear evidence that the Government’s Motion to Dismiss the case against Defendant Michael T. Flynn rests on pure pretext. There is clear evidence that this motion reflects a corrupt and politically motivated favor unworthy of our justice system. In the face of all this, the Government makes little effort to refute (or even address) the evidence exposing its abuses—and the arguments it does advance only further
undermine its position. Instead, the Government invokes a parade of false formalities that would reduce this Court to a rubber stamp. The Government’s motion should therefore be denied.”

Read more if you can stomach it:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.243.0_6.pdf

John Gleeson was appointed as a district judge by Bill Clinton.

That speaks volumes.

One has to wonder though, What level of quid pro quo is Gleeson receiving to promote this level of outrageous unconstitutional attack?

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

Assange hearing and testimony update September 8, 2020, UK & US courts, Seth Rich trials, US narrows espionage charge to only naming informants

Assange hearing and testimony update September 8, 2020, UK & US courts, Seth Rich trials, US narrows espionage charge to only naming informants

“Why John Brennan, Peter Strzok and DOJ Needed Julian Assange Arrested”…The Conservative Treehouse November 3, 2019

“Re: Seth Rich, keep an eye on the National Security Division of the Justice Department. As you can see from the federal complaint, the NSD ignored a FOIA request that I filed back in 2018 for records about Seth Rich. And look at Paragraph 16, plus Exhibit 8. I think NSD is playing a bigger role in the “Russian hacking” narrative than most of us understood. By sending Seth Rich records there, it’s easier to keep things classified. So why would a “street robbery” investigation need to be classified?”…Attorney Ty Clevenger July 22, 2020

“Assange testimony requested in Rich v Butowsky et al  August 24, 2020”…Citizen Wells

 

From Consortium News September 8, 2020 UK lunch break.

“US Tries to Narrow its Espionage Charge to Only Naming Informants; Defense Quotes Indictment to Prove Otherwise

Julian Assange was also warned by Judge Baraitser that he would be removed if he makes another outburst. U.S. crimes abroad on display.”

“Prosecution had tried to establish on cross that Assange is not being charged with publishing classified information, but only publishing names of informants, which happened to be in classified documents.

There is no specific U.S. statute against revealing informants names, as there is regarding the names of covert government agents, as readers will recall in the Valerie Plame case.  But James Lewis QC for the prosecution argued that informant names are national defense information and thus protected by the Espionage Act.

This is a sleight of hand and speaks to the public relations nature of the U.S. case. Lewis on the one hand argues Assange is not being charged with publishing, but only with publishing documents with informants’ names. That is an appeal to First Amendment concerns. But that is still a charge of publishing classified information, even if restricted to those with informant names.

The U.S. appeal to the public is to depict Assange as an ogre who doesn’t care for human life, while at the same time portraying the United States as being concerned for a free press.

Lewis read from the book by David Leigh and Luke Harding, Wikileaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy, in which the authors say that Assange was unconcerned about revealing the names of informants, and quotes from a dinner in which Assange was alleged to have said that informants deserved it, if they were killed.

Lewis asked the defense witness Smith if he agreed with Leigh about this or with Assange?  It was a below-the-belt question, which Smith evaded by returning to a point he repeatedly made that Lewis, as a British lawyer, didn’t know how U.S. trials are conducted the way Smith, an American lawyer, does.

Smith said it doesn’t matter what’s in an indictment, because other evidence is routinely introduced at American trials.”

Read more:

https://consortiumnews.com/2020/09/08/live-updates-assange-hearin-day-two-us-tries-to-narrow-its-espionage-charge-to-only-naming-informants-defense-quotes-indictment-to-prove-otherwise/

Julian Assange testimony is requested in active US lawsuits.

Here is one.

From Rich v Fox News Network.

“Fox News seeks testimony in response to the following specific questions:
1) What was Mr. Assange’s role (if any) in the establishment of WikiLeaks?
2) What was Mr. Assange’s role (if any) in connection with the activities of WikiLeaks in 2016?
3) In 2016 and 2017, what role (if any) did Mr. Assange have regarding the content of WikiLeaks’ Twitter postings?
4) What was Mr. Assange’s involvement (if any) in WikiLeaks’ July 22, 2016 release of emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee (DNC), as referenced at https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/?
5) When were those emails and documents provided to WikiLeaks?
6) How did WikiLeaks obtain the DNC emails and documents?
7) Which individual(s) and/or entit(y/ies) provided the DNC emails and documents to WikiLeaks?
8) Which individual(s) and/or entit(y/ies) obtained those materials from the DNC?
9) Describe any role played by Seth Rich to your knowledge in obtaining those materials and/or providing them to WikiLeaks.
10) To your knowledge, has WikiLeaks ever offered a reward for information related to a murder that occurred in the United States other than in relation to the murder of Seth Rich? If so, on how many occasions?
11) Why did WikiLeaks provide a reward for information related to the murder of Seth Rich?
12) Has Mr. Assange ever communicated with Seth Rich in any manner?
13) If so, what was the content of the communications?
14) If Mr. Assange himself has not communicated with Seth Rich, is Mr. Assange aware as to whether any person affiliated with WikiLeaks ever communicated with Seth Rich in any manner?
15) If so, (a) who communicated with Seth Rich? And (b) what, to Mr. Assange’s knowledge, was the content of such communication(s)?
16) Has Mr. Assange ever communicated in any manner with another member of the Rich family, including (but not limited to) Aaron Rich, Joel Rich, or Mary Rich?                                                                                                                                     17) If so, what was the content of those communications?
18) To Mr. Assange’s knowledge, has any other person affiliated with WikiLeaks ever communicated in any manner with a member of the Rich family?
19) If so, (a) who communicated with the Rich family? And (b) what, to Mr. Assange’s knowledge, was the content of such communication(s)?
20) To Mr. Assange’s knowledge, did any individual(s) and/or entit(y/ies) affiliated with the Russian Federation (including, but not limited to, the FSB, SVR, GU (or GRU), FSPSI, or any other intelligence service) play any role in obtaining and/or providing to WikiLeaks the 2016 DNC emails released by WikiLeaks?”

Read more:

https://citizenwells.com/2020/08/28/julian-assange-testimony-letters-rogatory-issued-august-27-2020-in-rich-v-fox-network-to-be-served-on-julian-assange-in-the-united-kingdom/

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

 

Julian Assange Extradition Hearing coverage September 7, 2020, Journalism historian and professor Mark Feldstein begins testimony

Julian Assange Extradition Hearing coverage September 7, 2020, Journalism historian and professor Mark Feldstein begins testimony

“Ellen Ratner can confirm that the Saturday before the Election 2016, she met with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange for 3 hours. He told her that Russia did not “hack” the DNC, it was from an internal source.”...Ellen Ratner’s attendance at Embry University symposium on November 9, 2016

“Why John Brennan, Peter Strzok and DOJ Needed Julian Assange Arrested”…The Conservative Treehouse November 3, 2019

“Letters Rogatory have been sent to the UK requesting the testimony of Julian Assange in at least 2 Seth Rich cases.”...Citizen Wells

 

From Don’t Extradite Assange September 7, 2020.

“Journalism professor begins testimony

Mark Feldstein, journalism historian and professor at the University of Maryland, gives testimony. See his witness statement here as to his determination that what Assange and WikiLeaks practice is journalism: Mark Feldstein witness statement

Feldstein testifies to the ubiquity of leaks of classified information:

“There are so many of them – thousands upon thousands – it is routine; every study in the last 60 years has said the leaks of classified information inform the public about government decision making but they also evidence government dishonesty….and they go back to George Washington’s presidency.”

Some journalists make a career of this?

Feldstein says, “Yes, Pulitzer prize winners and some of the most respected journalists in the nation.”

Would you expect publishers to be prosecuted for this criminal conduct?

“Well no…because the First Amendment protects a free press and it is vital that the press expise wrongdoing….not because journalists are somehow privileged but that the public has a right to be informed.”

Has there ever been a precedent of the prosecution of a publisher?

“There has always been a divide, the source-distributor divide….they have charged whistleblowers or sources, but have never charged a publisher, a journalistic or other news outlet.”

There have been other attempts to prosecute journalists before?

“There have been extraordinary efforts to punish presidential enemies…”

Presidents going after journalists but never to the point of a grand jury returning charges?

“That’s correct”

At this point, the court had technical issues with Prof. Feldstein’s videolink, and adjourned for the day. Court resumes tomorrow, 10am London time.

Read more:

https://dontextraditeassange.com/post/assanges-extradition-hearing-resumes-7-september-2020/

More coverage:

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

US and Flynn joint motion to expedite Sept 4, 2020, “The United States and General Flynn agree that this Court should resolve the pending motion to dismiss with dispatch”

US and Flynn joint motion to expedite Sept 4, 2020, “The United States and General Flynn agree that this Court should resolve the pending motion to dismiss with dispatch”

“Instead of doing so, the government has continued to defy its
constitutional, ethical and legal obligations to this Court and to the defense, and to hide evidence that it knows exonerates Mr. Flynn. As is the essence of the problem here, instead of protecting its citizens, the “government” is protecting its own criminal conduct and operatives.”…Attorney Sidney Powell October

“her client was “totally set up” because he threatened to expose wrongdoing by top intelligence officials in the Obama administration.

“He was going to audit the intel agencies because he knew about the billions Brennan and company were running off the books,” Powell said, referring to former CIA Director John Brennan.”…Sidney Powell, Vickie McKenna Show

On Judge Sullivan: “if there was any doubt up to this point whether his conduct gives the appearance of partiality, that doubt is gone.”...Judge Rao dissenting opinion

 

From

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
MICHAEL T. FLYNN

JOINT STATUS REPORT AND MOTION TO EXPEDITE
BY THE UNITED STATES AND GENERAL MICHAEL T. FLYNN

September 4, 2020.

“The United States of America and General Michael T. Flynn respectfully file this joint brief court’s minute order. On August 31, the D.C. Circuit, sitting en banc, denied General Flynn’s petition for a writ of mandamus. See In re Flynn, No. 20-5143, slip op. On September 1, this Court issued a minute order directing the parties “to file a joint status report with a recommendation for further proceedings by no later than September 21, 2020” proposing “a
briefing schedule regarding the deadlines for (1) the government and Mr. Flynn to file any surreply briefs; and (2) the government, Mr. Flynn, and the Court-appointed amicus curiae to file a consolidated response to any amicus brief of non-Court-appointed-amicus curiae.” It is not necessary, however, for this Court to wait until September 21 to proceed with this case. The Court
instead may, and should, set a schedule to resolve this case as soon as possible.

This Court’s minute order observes that, under D.C. Circuit Rule 41(a)(3), the order  denying mandamus relief “will become effective automatically 21 days after issuance”—here, on September 21. This Court, however, need not await the effectiveness of the denial of mandamus to proceed with this case. The pendency of mandamus proceedings in the court of appeals does not, on its own, deprive the district court of its continuing jurisdiction over a case or operate as a
stay of proceedings in the district court. Indeed, in this very case, the Court allowed briefing on the government’s motion to dismiss to continue while General Flynn’s petition for mandamus was pending before the court of appeals panel. See ECF Nos. 211-234. Accordingly, the Court need not wait for the issuance of the court of appeals’ mandate or for the formal termination of appellate court proceedings before deciding the government’s motion to dismiss.

In addition, the D.C. Circuit’s decision indicates that proceeding now is appropriate. In its opinion denying the petition for a writ of mandamus, the D.C. Circuit stated: “As the underlying criminal case resumes in the District Court, we trust and expect the District Court to proceed with appropriate dispatch.” Slip Op. 17-18. The United States and General Flynn agree that this Court
should resolve the pending motion to dismiss with dispatch. It is not necessary to delay further proceedings until September 21, and any delay would harm both the government, which must expend resources on a case that it has determined should be dismissed, and General Flynn, who faces impairments on his liberty and the cloud of a pending prosecution that the Executive Branch
seeks to end.”

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.238.0_3.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

Flynn Writ of Mandamus denied by US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia August 31, 2020, “we trust and expect the District Court to proceed with appropriate dispatch”

Flynn Writ of Mandamus denied by US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia August 31, 2020, “we trust and expect the District Court to
proceed with appropriate dispatch”

“Instead of doing so, the government has continued to defy its
constitutional, ethical and legal obligations to this Court and to the defense, and to hide evidence that it knows exonerates Mr. Flynn. As is the essence of the problem here, instead of protecting its citizens, the “government” is protecting its own criminal conduct and operatives.”…Attorney Sidney Powell October

“Ms. Sines’s testimony flatly contradicts the FBI’s claims that (1) it did not investigate matters pertaining to Mr. Rich; (2) it did not examine his computer; and (3) it conducted a “reasonable” search but could not locate any records or communications about Mr. Rich. Specifically, Ms. Sines’s testimony flatly contradicts the affidavit testimony of FBI Section Chief David M. Hardy.”…Attorney Ty Clevenger March 29, 2020

“her client was “totally set up” because he threatened to expose wrongdoing by top intelligence officials in the Obama administration.

“He was going to audit the intel agencies because he knew about the billions Brennan and company were running off the books,” Powell said, referring to former CIA Director John Brennan.”…Sidney Powell, Vickie McKenna Show

 

From the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia August 31, 2020.

“For the foregoing reasons, the Petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied. As the underlying criminal case resumes in the District Court, we trust and expect the District Court to proceed with appropriate dispatch.”

“KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge, with whom
RAO, Circuit Judge, joins, dissenting: The Court today denies
Michael Flynn’s mandamus petition on the ground that he has
an adequate remedy at law. It also declines to reassign this case
to a different trial judge. I dissent as to the majority’s merits
holding for the reasons stated in the majority opinion in In re
Flynn, 961 F.3d 1215, 1219 (D.C. Cir. 2020), vacated, reh’g
en banc granted No. 20-5143, 2020 WL 4355389 (D.C. Cir.
July 30, 2020); further, I join Judge Rao’s dissent herein. As
to the majority’s decision not to reassign, my colleagues set an
impossibly high bar for a trial judge’s impartiality to
“reasonably be questioned,” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), and seem
content to read that subsection out of the United States Code,
even as they infuse Rule 48(a)’s “with leave of court” clause
with enough force to upend our entire system of separated
powers. Because I believe the trial judge’s conduct patently
draws his impartiality into question—and because I believe
§ 455(a) has teeth—I dissent and write separately to explain
why the trial judge is disqualified from further participation in
this case.”

“RAO, Circuit Judge, with whom HENDERSON, Circuit
Judge, joins, dissenting: The Department of Justice has moved
to dismiss the criminal charges against General Michael Flynn,
but the district court insists on further factfinding to scrutinize
the motives and circumstances behind the Department’s
decision. While a district court plays a limited role in granting
“leave of court” to an unopposed motion to dismiss, it is long
settled that a district court cannot supervise the prosecutorial
decisions of the Executive Branch. In our system of separated
powers, the government may deprive a person of his liberty
only upon the action of all three branches: Congress must pass
a law criminalizing the activity; the Executive must determine
that prosecution is in the public interest; and the Judiciary,
independent of the political branches, must adjudicate the case.
The Constitution divides these powers in order to protect
individual liberty from a concentration of government
authority.
In Flynn’s case, the prosecution no longer has a prosecutor.
Yet the case continues with district court proceedings aimed at
uncovering the internal deliberations of the Department. The
majority gestures at the potential harms of such a judicial
intrusion into the Executive Branch, but takes a wait-and-see
approach, hoping and hinting that the district judge will not
take the actions he clearly states he will take. While mandamus
remains an extraordinary remedy, it is appropriate here to
prevent this judicial usurpation of the executive power and to
correct the district court’s abuse of discretion. I respectfully
dissent.”

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/777940F1C81FD47E852585D5005DADCB/$file/20-5143.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/