The Julian Paul Assange Verdict: The High Court Has Granted Assange Leave to Appeal Extradition to the United States, Decision Adjourned to May 20th Pending Assurances
The original:
"According to the ruling, a decision on the appeal has been adjourned to 20 May. The court is seeking assurances from the US. In the event that none are filed, the appeal will be granted." -National broadcaster
Wikileaks:
Introduction
FIVE weeks ago we explained what today's verdict has (or had) at stake. At the time it wasn't clear if a decision would be handed down immediately after the hearing. Only on the day of the decision they finally said that it was coming (unless we had missed some headsup).
Why did they not notify the world's press a week in advance or even a full day in advance? Why is this scheduled for two days before Maundy Thursday or Holy Thursday? Are they "taking the piss" as we put it here?
The decision is now out and it can be found in this document (no direct link), albeit preceded by biased and misleading "trial by media", i.e. the usual rehash (a week earlier there was rumour-mongering in mainstream media, potentially seeking to alienate sympathetic journalists with the controversial "plea bargain" line).
"Specifically," an associate wondered, "what does "adjourned their decision" mean in plain talk? Most likely they had decided to free him but the powers that be stepped in at the last minute."
The Bill Gates-funded national broadcaster talks about it, as does Wikileaks in Twitter. Here is a more official page ("A copy of the judgment in final form as handed down can be made available after that time, on request by email to the listoffice@administrativecourtoffice.justice.gov.uk").
We're still trying to locate the PDF to ensure the mainstream media does not get unfair advantage and carte blanche to bias perceptions/interpretations.
What Does This Decision Mean?
For those of us who rely on leaked material and whistleblowers (to break news and refute lies from companies/organisations/governments using their own words) the decision is very important. But it seems like we'll need to wait some more. They just kick the can down the road a little longer, hoping to never free Assange and perhaps expecting his health to deteriorate even further.
What Happens Next?
Rarely has anyone been extradited for committing an act of journalism (unlike actual crimes). This can be said not only about Western nations.
The media will continue to smear Assange some more while he is behind bars, unable to defend himself from falsehoods (directly at least).
"Even the BBC parrots the "put lives at risk" lie which has been debunked repeatedly," an associate notes. "They fail to point out, also, that neither crimes nor evidence of crimes are eligible for classification. My guess is that they will pack him off to the airport post haste to avoid an appeal at the European Court of Human Rights No mention, either, about the conflict of interest with the judge's husband's connections." [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
At the end of the day this decision was political (the verdict was known to insiders for days already, or at least for hours, and was likely negotiated further with the parties in question behind closed doors). Provided they follow all the "official" and "professional" protocols (and wear all the "right" or "formal" props), we're meant to believe that, without a doubt, only the Rule of Law played a role here. Properly functioning democracies with Rule of Law principles do not delay "justice" for a decade and a half while allowing the accused to rot away in some house arrest, embassy, and then a prison cell, even during a pandemic.
That is a setback, an associate notes, regarding the political opinions and may stem from the conflict of interest which the judge has via her husband.
They say "Julian Assange faces a further wait to see whether he can appeal against his extradition..."
"The inhumane conditions and lack of health care would mean that sending him to a US prison would be tantamount to a death sentence," the associate argues. "They're fussing too much on suicide and ignoring the basic characteristics of the privatised institutions involved." █