A couple notes I'd add to @SeamusHughes's brilliant catch of what looks like a very consequential find and replace error in an unrelated case.
-I could find no public criminal (or civil) cases in EDVA with the surname Assange. ...
-I could find no public criminal (or civil) cases in EDVA with the surname Assange. ...
-The reference to "sophistication of the defendant and the publicity surrounding the case" doesn't seem to fit with the obscure case in which the doc was filed. I think that's also from the base doc prosecutors used to start drafting this motion and therefore describes "Assange."
Per court records, the charges in the obscure case were filed under seal on August 22, the defendant was arrested the next day, the case was unsealed on September 4, and the grand jury indictment was only handed down last week, on Nov. 8--after some mutually agreed extensions.
To throw maybe just a dash of cold water on this, here's the corresponding paragraph from a 2016 motion to seal signed by the same prosecutor for some hackers in Latvia and Russia (details: thedailybeast.com/russian-nation…). It's far more detailed about extradition and travel issues.
I'd generally expect to find the same language in a 2018 motion for renowned international fugitive Julian Assange... and it's not evident in the filing Seamus found, fwiw. (Not saying this outweighs the presence of the name "Assange" in the analysis, but it adds to the puzzle)
Julian Assange has been charged under seal, WaPo reports tonight washingtonpost.com/world/national…
It took just about 3.5 hours from @SeamusHughes’s tweet until WaPo published confirmation, with a quote on the record from an EDVA spokesman. Kinda like DOJ didn’t feel to motivated to fight this disclosure, which is interesting.
NYT files a slightly different report from WaPo, saying prosecutors have “prepared an indictment” against Assange but that it isn’t clear whether it’s been filed. nytimes.com/2018/11/16/us/…
