💧Mary Kostakidis Profile picture
Sep 7, 2020 53 tweets 6 min read Read on X
Extradition Hearing thread #Assange

I’ve logged on and can see the Observer Room Host and a technical assistant.

Have my fingers crossed this is all going to work.

Waiting while the host determines who can join.
Goodness, seeing people negotiating who will join. They did say ONE person per organisation.
Laura Warden, the Observer Room Host, looks to be in her living room. I am hoping she is automatically allowing people to join where there is no problem.
I have to say this looks quite surreal.
A short time ago we received a reminder that recording or photographing anything I’d forbidden.
We’re joining the court room “shortly”
In now.
The camera is focused on the bench but the judge isn’t there yet. Lots of chatting, in German.
View of the courtroom now. And some seats at the back behind glass.
Can see someone who may be Stella. Figures in the distance blurred.
Someone has asked that Mr Assange be brought up
The judge has entered.
Julian has been re arrested
Audio not good
Mark Summers is in court representing Julian
Julian is wearing a suit. He looks much older.
Summers is saying he hasn’t seen the arrest document itself. Now just given to him. Now to summarise the content of new request.
The judge must inform the defendant of the contents. Fitzgerald confirms Julian has seen the fresh warrant. Julian is asked if he consents to be extradited. Pardon? He says, then, No.
Baraitser asking if Defence wants to talk to their client. No they will wait till housekeeping matters are dealt with..
Judge warning those attending remotely that the same rules apply as if we were in court. No photos on social media. If anyone breaches that she may cancel the videolink.
Judge explaining why members of the public can’t attend remotely.
We can hear her very clearly but not the legal team when they stand to speak.
Lewis appearing for the govt. not delivering an opening address. Summers too.
Oh my goodness. Some of the witnesses have been denied permission to join.
Judge says it s in error.
Defence says
Expert witnesses should be both able to submit their statement & be taken through it.
Factual witnesses also should have their statements adopted then taken through them.
Judge asks what the point is as she has read their statements.
Defence says
before cross examination it’s important for the court, the public and Mr Assange to hear the key points before they are cross examined.... Ensures justice is done in public.
Judge is concerned about time allocated to do what defence is proposing with witnesses. Defence says it’s possible & advisable for an orderly & rational exposition.
Judge says
It is me that needs to have read the statements. Discussion about releasing the statements to public and summarise.
Objection from Lewis, about the process, and the so expert witnesses - says they are not experts, just people offering opinion.
Defence argues the High Court doesn’t do this so why should this court be so generous, giving witnesses the opportunity to add to their statements.
Defence says a Professor of Journalism has to be accepted as an expert witness. Prosecution disagrees - only medical witnesses acceptable. Defence argues the purpose of questioning witnesses is to ask the basis of their opinion.
Defence argues this would be a complete departure from what has gone before & a matter of human rights.
Judge says witness statements will be made public. In her view there is no benefit to going through the statements but will give Defence no more than 30minutes with each witness to settle them in, so time needs to be shorter per witness.
Fe admissibility of evidence, the parties have reached agreement says Defence. She will break so Defence can talk to their client. Defence saying witnesses should be allowed to follow proceedings. Judge will think about it. Eg Jen Robinson is a witness but s/b able to follow.
How long do you need with your client? Judge asks. About an hour. Court will now break so his lawyers can talk to Julian. The sound has now been muted.
The aircon isn’t working so she have them permission to take off their jackets.
I can see @SwaziJAF talking to @StellaMoris1 in the distance
Problems so far:
Audio is shocking - esp Julian’s legal team who stand to speak;
Amnesty monitor & Consortuim News’ Joe Lauria not on the videolink yet. I hope they let them in during this break.
Clearly we will see very little of Julian.
Court is back
A number of us have complained about the audio on the videolink
Summers referring the judge to the new allegations & affidavits. Without warning, weeks before this hearing, the US announced the new indictment. Defence had it a month before the judge.
Charges seemed the same but more general allegations added.
The new allegations are put before the judge as stand alone criminality - he could be extradited on the basis of these new allegations.
A potentially separate & distinct basis for extradition - involvement in stealing money from a bank, tracking police vehicles, directing someone to hack a computer, assisting a whistleblower in Hong Kong, encouraging someone to intrude into computers in Iceland.
Summers asks how this could be a crime in the US & dual criminality a problem.
Restrictions inhibiting Julian’s contact with his lawyers are unacceptable says Summers.
Summers saying this is a new extradition; issues surrounding the source of this new evidence - some of the individuals were tried a decade ago, including Jeremy Hammond. Summers listing the various other individuals including “Teenager” convicted of fraud, theft, stealing, &
Impersonating Julian.
Dates when the incidents occurred are a problem - out of time.
Also the new allegations can’t be considered in time, even without the restrictions in speaking to their client.
Summers asking the judge to excise the new conduct, she has jurisdiction & power.
Summers providing precedents for the judge & inviting her to invoke her power to redress what would be fundamentally unfair to the defence
Summers says the defence would not be able to provide her with the material to make a decision fairly.
This is abnormal, unfair & would lead to a great injustice.
Very frustrating - someone is making an argument off camera & difficult to hear what they are saying.
Ok we see the speaker now - he is part of the prosecution team, but his speech is impossible to hear clearly unfortunately.
This camera angle is allowing us to see Julian. He is sitting up very straight. He is behind the glass and we don’t know whether he can hear clearly enough to follow the arguments.
Here is the Defence Argument pt 1
bridgesforfreedom.media/wp-content/upl…
Here is part 2. See section 8 re the new allegations
bridgesforfreedom.media/wp-content/upl…
Summers on his feet: wrong, wrong, wrong Madam.
Apropos Jurisdiction - agrees there exists jurisdiction to make repeated extradition requests but it is unfair to do it 6 weeks before the hearing. You have to do it in a manner that’s fair.
Summers: prosecution has included conduct outside the original timeframe. He argues the Prosecution is making an error in interpreting the law with respect to the judge’s power
“Mr Smith is saying HaHa this is what we’re doing & there’s nothing you can do about it”.
Judge: I offered the defence an opportunity to defer in order to prepare but they declined to do so. She is refusing to excise any of the conduct in the new request. The defence team had argued it would have been unfair on Julian to defer the hearing for months.
Lunch break.
So to clarify, anyone who was given approval to join the videolink who is not a journalist was not aloud access. The judge said it was organised without her permission - she can’t control the situation as if they are in the court. So Amnesty’s monitor was excluded.
Allowed

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with 💧Mary Kostakidis

💧Mary Kostakidis Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MaryKostakidis

Jul 26
A devastating and damning report by @nirhasson 🧵

‘For Israeli decision-makers, starvation of the Gaza Strip was in the cards from day one of the war..
1. About 30,000 people live in the southern Israeli city of Sderot. Imagine that the refrigerators of all Sderot residents are empty. In fact, they don't even have refrigerators. The bakeries are closed. The supermarket shelves offer nothing. Residents are hungry. And then, once every 24 hours, a single truck enters the city gates and distributes food, door to door. And the food on that truck? That's all there is, for the entire city.
About 30,000 people also live in Or Akiva. And in Arad. Each city gets one truck a day.
Will the residents of Sderot still be hungry by the end of the day? And what will happen after a week? And after a month?’ Cont
‘2. According official data from the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories, which is responsible for carrying out the government's civilian policy in those areas, an average of 71 trucks entered the Gaza Strip each day over the past month. Seventy-one trucks meant to feed 2.1 million people. One truck for every 30,000. Half of the trucks made it to a distribution center but the other half of them, brought in by the United Nations and various aid organizations, were looted en route.

It's a pitiful amount of food. But one can only wish the Sderot scenario was the reality in Gaza. The situation there is much worse.’ Cont
‘3. In Gaza, the truck does not distribute food door to door. Half of the food it carries is unloaded in large piles in remote military zones. The gates there open for just 15 minutes a day, according to a random schedule. You're reading that right: 15 minutes a day.

People loot the other half of the goods straight from the trucks. In both cases, those who manage to get to the food are almost exclusively young men, those who can carry heavy loads, run fast and are willing to risk their lives.

Over 1,000 have died so far while crowding around to get food, since late May, most of them from Israel Defense Forces gunfire.
What happens to those who can't make it to the trucks or the distribution centers? What about the women, the disabled, the sick, the elderly? What about the unlucky?
They are starving to death.’ Cont
Read 5 tweets
Jul 12
Louise Adler in The Guardian: 🧵
‘One must acknowledge the remarkably effective Jewish community organisations in Australia behind the latest antisemitism report. Collectively, with their News Ltd megaphone, they have successfully badgered the government of the day, cowed the ABC, intimidated vice-chancellors and threatened to defund arts organisations.
With the ability to garner prime ministerial dinners, a battalion of lobbyists has gained access to editors, duchessed willingly seduced journalists keen to enjoy junkets and corralled more than 500 captains of industry to subscribe to full-page ads against antisemitism and thereby blurring political argument with prejudice and bias. It is no surprise that this relentless propaganda effort has paid off…’
On those forever quoted statistics on antisemitism:
‘16 students at Sydney University feeling intimidated by the slogan “from the river to the sea” was reframed as 250 complaints submitted to parliamentary inquiry. A childcare centre that was not in fact a Jewish centre was added to the list of terrifying antisemitic attacks. The individuals police believe were hired by criminals seeking a reduction in their prison sentences who allegedly placed combustible material in a caravan became a “terrorist plot”’’

The figures include all the ‘fake’ antisemitism attacks by paid criminals orchestrated by a crime figure not in any way driven by antisemitism, antiZionism or anti Israel motivation. As for the keffiyeh and the phrase from the River to the Sea, interpreting the symbols and slogans of another group as threatening while promoting your own as needing protection is one eyed and undermines social cohesion.
‘The publication of the special envoy’s plan is the latest flex by the Jewish establishment. The in-house scribes have been busy: no institution, organisation or department is exempt from the latest push to weaponise antisemitism and insist on the exceptionalism of Australian Jewry. One might pause to wonder what First Nations people, who are the victims of racism every day, feel about the priority given to 120,000 well-educated, secure and mostly affluent individuals…
The envoy wants to strengthen legislation apparently. Isn’t that the role of the government of the day? Who is to be the arbiter? Who is to be the judge, for example, of universities and their report cards? Who will adjudicate “accountability” in the media? Who will recommend defunding which artist? Should this government endorse this proposal, it will clearly be the envoy.
Fortunately, a suite of laws protecting us from racism, discrimination, hate speech and incitement to violence are already deeply embedded in our civil society. No university is oblivious to these laws, no public broadcaster, no arts organisation.
Educating future generations about the Holocaust has long been a priority. I hope the envoy is aware of the work done engaging thousands of school students at such institutions as the Melbourne Holocaust Museum where my own mother was the education officer for over a decade. If the envoy is concerned that school students aren’t sufficiently well versed in the horrors of the Holocaust, she might take heart from such evidence as the sales of Anne Frank’s diary continue unabated, in the past five years more than 55,000 copies were sold in Australia.
The envoy helpfully proposes to nominate “trusted voices” to refute antisemitic claims – yet again seeking to prescribe who speaks and which views are deemed acceptable. One hopes that media organisations are resolute against the plan’s determination to monitor, oversee and “ensure fair reporting to avoid perpetually incorrect or distorted narratives or representations of Jews”. It seems that the envoy wants to determine what is legitimate reportage. Freedom of the press is of less importance. Independent journalism that is factual and speaks the truth is lightly abandoned.


What is Australia’s proposed antisemitism plan – and why are some parts causing concern?

Read more
Universities appear to be on notice: adopt the IHRA definition, act on it or be warned that in March 2026 a judicial inquiry will be established as the envoy demands.
Cultural organisations be warned – your funding could be at risk too. There isn’t a cultural organisation in the country that doesn’t have well-argued codes of conduct for staff, artists and audiences – in place well before the 7 October attack to combat homophobia, racism and hate speech. Now it is proposed that a Jewish Cultural and Arts Council is to advise the arts minister. To privilege one ethnic community over others is deeply offensive and dangerous.’

And there I’ll stop because Segal’s shopping list is deeply offensive and dangerous.
Read 4 tweets
Feb 13
A very fine post on safety/unsafety by @RandaAFattah
on Instagram 🧵
Image
Image
Image
Image
Read 5 tweets
Feb 10
Breaking
ABC changes its position and defence, now acknowledging @antoinette_news IS Lebanese . A recognition the race exists 🤦🏻‍♀️
Today’s hearing began with the ABC apologising for filing an unredacted affidavit revealing the name of a complainant.
Two own goals for @ABCaustralia
With respect to the very wise move to change their position on race in this case, I think it can be assumed Chair Kim Williams would have come down on management like a ton of bricks. He has been outspoken on change required at the broadcaster, and this catastrophic case is public confirmation of the rectitude of that position.
@ABCaustralia Currently Ahern being cross examined by ABC - he is held responsible for hiring Lattouf. Next today will be then Chair Buttrose followed by Green, her direct supervisor whose evidence will be an integral piece in the puzzle of what Lattouf was told, as she did the telling.
Read 15 tweets
Feb 8
In light of the ongoing court case brought by @antoinette_news against the @ABCaustralia for unfair dismissal, it’s worth recalling her proposal to the ABC in order to settle the matter which I’ll post in a thread below.
Instead, the ABC decided to defend their decision, exposed in excruciating detail and at enormous expense to the taxpayer - we are funding the 14 month battle (so far) and the massive US law firm Seyfarth the ABC has engaged to fight it. It will be costing a fortune.
Here is what she had asked for to settle it months ago:
🧵Image
Image
Image
Read 4 tweets
Feb 3
Fascinating day in court as @antoinette_news lawyer outlines content of emails between senior members of the ABC prior to her HRW post, the pressure they came under from the lobby group Lawyers for Israel from the moment she was on air, because of her known political opinions, their conclusion the position was untenable but that they could not sack her abuse she had done nothing wrong and for fear of the phenomenal ‘blowback’.
The manner in which she was sacked - called to a brief meeting and told to collect her things and leave the building did not follow the proscribed procedure under the enterprise agreement according to her lawyer.
Her sacking followed her repost of a HRW report stating Israel was using starvation as a weapon of war.
Court adjourned briefly..
If you wish to follow, livestream here

youtube.com/live/a8RorBeAi…
Lattouf’s lawyer lists numerous additional complaints from the lobby group to the Chair and MD on the day she was sacked, and The Australian, which evidently knew of the complaints, called the ABC.
He says emails show ABC senior figures were sympathetic to the Israel lobby’s position.
A slide of AL’s post simply saying ‘HRW reporting starvation as a tool of war’ is shown - apparent this could not be construed as anything but a statement of fact, and in addition, with ABC news stories appeared on the HRW report prior to and after AL’s post.

Her lawyer refers to an unwritten expectation that ABC employees will not do at any time anything that may convey the view they are not impartial.

He says ABC claims it imposed on AL a bespoke rule (not to post about Gaza) and then sacked her for breaching that standard.

If Senior Exec Oliver Taylor asserts the post expresses an opinion, then the dismissal is because of her political opinions - ‘opinionated’ and ‘partial’ mean the same thing, so they hold the post revealed impartiality.

If Senior Management were agnostic on the Gaza issue, then they succumbed to a campaign.
Either ABC capitulated to a lobby or she breached a standard specific to her.

He says the ABC submission is long and an elaborate navigation for the ABC narrative, characteristic of a lawyers drafting, when there is ample material in the contemporaneous emails, in order to reinterpret clear statements in emails; the affidavits don’t deal with critical issues - who gave the direction and when? Her supervisor Green stated in their meeting that she did not give Lattouf a ‘directive’ not to post, she ‘advised’ her to avoid it. The complex affidavits don’t describe why the post was ‘partial’ - the post doesn’t appear in Taylor’s affidavit at all ie the very thing that was ostensibly the reason for the sacking.
Apropos communications, the ABC are prohibited from using Signal as they are subject to the Archives Act and can’t delete.
ABC Witness statements are he says replete with terms like ‘trust and confidence’, ‘impartiality’ etc
Oliver Taylor believes she was given a direction ‘bespoke to her’ not to post about Gaza, and her post ‘may’ have breached that direction.
He says the ABC justify not following their protocols for dismissal because a presenter can be removed even if she hasn’t done anything wrong (rostering change etc).
Lattouf asserts if she was not of the Lebanese race she would not have been removed in that way.
The ABC will assert says there is no evidence there is such a thing as a Lebanese race. The ABC lawyer rose - he objects to this being run as a discrimination case because it departs from the pleadings.

SAl’s lawyer says the issue is whether she was dismissed because of the HRW post, or because of objections to her political opinion by the lobby group and the Chair of the ABC.

Also, AL’s lawyer says that there could be no rational basis for Taylor to believe her post was a sackable offence. That the evidence she was given a directive particular to her was implausible given Green told management she didn’t issue a directive. Nevertheless, Taylor concluded a directive was given. And he thought there ‘may’ have been a breach of ABC social media policy.
1 of 2 for this morning session
Read 35 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(