Extradition September hearing Day 14 (16 inl 2 Covid)
On the video link waiting to cross to court.
Expect to be back to US prison conditions today.
Yancey Ellis is an EDVA lawyer who will focus on pre-trial conditions, another US lawyer Joel Sickler on post-conviction work.
Hard to believe there are a mere 13 of us on the video link around the world, other than the few journalists in the adjacent court room at the Old Bailey
Lewis catches himself on the screen & takes the opportunity to pat down his hair. In these moments each day we see the lawyers & court officials put on their ties.
As forecast, US lawyer Yancey Ellis is first up on video.
Stella is in the corner & catches JA as he walks in behind the glass
Judge wants to deal first up with the press decision, asks for the rep.
She has found in favour of Defence, rejecting the press application for the medical statements.
Fitzgerald says Defence is happy with the document obtained regarding the razor incident to be released. The judge says she has yet to rule on whether that evidence will be permitted/accepted & she will deal with that afterwards.
Judge says one medical statement which was read in court, that of Dr Humphries (possibly one of those we could not hear..), can be released.
Judge is still reading her lengthy decision on the press request..
Her view is these details of his private life do not need to be disclosed
It’s 5 am for Yancey Ellis.
Fitzgerald: Ellis has made 2 statements. Holds a PhD in law, worked as a public defender in Alexandria & now in private practise & has clients in X block at the prison.
Ellis: JA would be held in X block pre trial, there is no other place to house them...
Ellis: Manning & Mannafort were held there pre trial.
JA would be held in the (ADSEG..?) unit referred to as X block where there are 4 - 6 cells. The cell is small 50ft or less, there is a shelf with a blanket on top and a small sink. They get 1-2 hours outside but the second..
.. hour can be in the middle of the night so not taken up.
If there are other inmates in that block, it’s not possible to communicate thru the cells, even shouting & you would never be outside with another prisoner.
Fitzgerald asks him to comment on Kromberg assertion that prisoners can communicate between cells.
Ellis: he hasn’t tried it, I can’t communicate with clients unless the food hatch is opened & you have to request that, so it’s not possible for prisoners to communicate - that’s..
..The point of being kept there. It is solitary confinement. The courts defer to the jail on how to house inmates most securely so this is not possible to change. These are the basic minimum restrictions. SAMs deals with other restrictions as well dealing with phone calls etc..
Fitzgerald- your clients were not under SAMs, could they make calls?
Ellis: you can make calls during your break.
Ellis can’t comment on SAMs restrictions.
On psychological disability: no doctor at the jail, part time access to psychiatrist so delays in consultations to alter ..
.. Medication, it’s basically to ensure you are functioning. For suicidal inmates they can be temporarily taken to another unit where they can be monitored.
It’s difficult to find someone within the prison to give you access to the block.
Lewis: you say Kromberg’s evidence is inaccurate or incomplete.
How many prisoners are held there?
Ellis: 300 or so, but only 4-6 in X block.
Lewis: your comments come from your clients & visits.
Have you interviewed the prison warden or staff or psychiatrist?
Ellis: no
Lewis: you’ve given one side of the picture.
Ellis: ..that there are two sides to every story? (Straight face)
Lewis: yes
Ellis: sure.
Lewis plowing thru Kromberg .. asking Ellis about his knowledge of good compliance in jail with policies.
Ellis politely say in effect , so what.
Ellis: they have a Togo’s track record in actual completed suicides ( I guess he means limited successful suicides).
Lewis: how would JA be assessed for housing?
Ellis: I have never been granted access to such docs.
But I believe he would be held in administrative segregation.
Lewis asks about programs available for inmates.
Ellis: The jail doesn’t run individual programs for those held in segregation.
Lewis: he can meet with his lawyers any time
Ellis: no he can’t.
Lewis: you don’t include time spent with lawyers..
Ellis says you don’t see your lawyers that often so essentially it doesn’t make much
...difference. You would have to be given special permission to go to the library but only when no one else is there.
If you have a mental health issue you can be sent to a hospital..
Lewis attempting to show the witness isn’t as knowledgeable as Kromberg, asks specifically..
..again about JA, Ellis replying that high profile inmates are not kept with others, nor would he get any special treatment, no matter who his lawyers were or how many he had.
Fitzgerald re-examines Ellis on the basis of his knowledge & view JA will be in X block. Ellis says X block is the only option.
Fitzgerald asks whether there was a problem with Manning in X block
Ellis: well publicised & some not publicised suicide attempts in X block. Manning was considered female so could not be held in X block.
Ellis: there is nowhere else in the jail
Judge says JA has been in the general prison here, why would he be in segregation in the US?
Ellis: high profile plus mental problem, in order to maintain security in the jail, they segregate these inmates.
Ellis finished.
Discussion about dealing with a statement from a Mr Guardella (sp?) - break to consider how to deal with it. This statement has a risen from the cross examination of Kopelman. It may be regarding the razor incident.
We’re back. No. Another 10 mins to see if they can get the next witness earlier than proposed.
Judge back but still waiting for witness..
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.
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.
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:
🧵
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
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
Here is @SlezakPeter - academic and son of Holocaust survivors - powerful speech at the Sydney rally yesterday (1 of 3)
‘I’m among very many Jews, here and around the world to protest what Israel is doing in our name, and I’m proud to join you every week for over a year in solidarity with Palestinians.
I want to give a shout-out to those each week holding the banner “Jews Against the Occupation.” Our presence and our solidarity refute the smear that these rallies are antisemitic Jew-hate rallies. I know what antisemitism is and it's not here EVER at these rallies.
My mother survived the WW2 Nazi Auschwitz extermination camp, and she always asked why was the world silent? Why did they look away from the genocide of the Jews and do nothing? Today we know the answer as our government and media look away and do nothing for the Palestinians.
Well, in the last few days we have seen the landmark decision by the International Court of Justice – the ICC – an important victory for accountability:
The ICC has issued warrants for the arrest of two of Israel’s leaders – Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Gallant. Both are charged as perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Above all, the ICC arrest warrants confirm that those of us protesting here each week, and especially the university student encampments, were right all along.
The war crimes charged against Netanyahu include:
• Starvation of the civilian population of Gaza.
• depriving them medicine, fuel and electricity.
• military attacks against the civilian population.
• murder and other inhumane acts against the civilian population.
• blocking humanitarian aid.
• the destruction of the civilian population in Gaza – which is the very definition of genocide.
Australia as a member of the Rome Statute and ICC is legally under an obligation to arrest Netanyahu and Gallant if they arrive here. However, Australia is yet to confirm whether or not it will comply with arrest warrants issued for these indicted war criminals…
Cont
2/3 ‘The Weekend Australian newspaper (Nov 24, 2004) refers to the “silence by Foreign Minister Penny Wong” who is “pretending to sit on the fence”. And The ABC Headline says “Australia tip-toes around ICC decision” issuing only an opaque motherhood statements.
What is she waiting for?
Well, she is probably ambivalent because in March Albanese and Wong were also referred to the ICC for being complicit in the Gaza genocide in a claim co-signed by over 100 Australian lawyers.
Of course, Zionists in Australia are apoplectic and having a melt-down echoing Netanyahu’s excuses:
• Predictably, using the usual get-out-of-jail-free card, he called it an “anti-semitic decision.”
Even in Israel’s newspaper Ha’aretz the headline says:
"Netanyahu Brought the ICC Ruling on Himself and Now He's Whining About Antisemitism".
There is a great deal of deliberate, cynical confusion about this. Let me be clear: As the Jewish historian Norman Finkelstein has said, Israel is a rogue, lunatic state. It is not antisemitic to say Fuck Israel and Fuck Zionism: A guy was arrested on Bondi Beach for wearing this on his T-shirt.
• Netanyahu said “No war is more just than the war Israel has been waging in Gaza” because Israel’s destruction of Gaza is in SELF-DEFENCE !!!
This is DECEITFUL, DELUSIONAL BULLSHIT
In international law, it’s not actually OK to starve children to death for self-defence!!
We have all seen the pictures – mile after mile of residential cities reduced to rubble. What kind of sick mind can consider the complete destruction of Gaza as “self-defence” – targeting Hamas militants hiding behind human shields.
Since October 7 last year, Gaza has been transformed from the largest open-air prison in the world to the LARGEST MASS-GRAVE.
And the OTHER Albanese, the wonderful UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, points out that Israel has no right to defend itself against resistance emanating from the territory it controls under occupation.
On the contrary, according to international law it is the people under occupation who have the right to resist, including the right to armed resistance.
Israel has dropped more bombs on Gaza than the Allied bombing in World War 2 on Dresden, Hamburg, and London combined! More bombs on Gaza in a week than the US dropped on Afghanistan in one year ...
In 1967 during the Vietnam War, American scholar Noam Chomsky said something relevant today:
“With no further information than this, a person who has not lost his senses must realize that the war is an overwhelming atrocity.”
The assault on Gaza is not a “war” but a cowardly act of terrorism by the most sophisticated military force against a defenceless population.
It’s important to recognize that the excessive, disproportionate military force against civilians – mass murder – is deliberate – it is official Israeli military policy. It’s actually called the DAHIYA DOCTRINE – GOOGLE IT!! ..
Cont
3 of 3
Doctors have been speaking out about the horrors they witnessed.
One American Doctor said “Every Day I was there I saw children shot in the head. That's not an accident. That's deliberate targeting of children for death. That's murder." SHAME.
Another doctor, British surgeon, Nizam Mamode, recently returned from Gaza, and testified in front of the UK Parliament. With tears, he barely could speak. He said that Israeli drones would pick off and shoot injured civilians, including children.
• Netanyahu says that “Hamas attacked us UNPROVOKED…”
But, of course, history didn’t begin on October 7th last year. GAZA has been under illegal, brutal BLOCKADE – since 2007.
In 2018 there was the peaceful protests of the Great March of Return in Gaza during which Israeli snipers killed or maimed hundreds of unarmed protesters, disabled people, nurses.
Australian Human Rights expert at the UN Chris Sidoti said: “Israel’s is one of the most criminal armies in the world” because “this is a period without precedent in a war that has been going for a century.”
= = =
After arrest warrants for Netanyahu & Gallant were issued, Israeli forces escalated mass killings of civilians in Gaza. At least 9 massacres were documented
• A day after, at least 90 Palestinians, including 36 children, were killed.
Of course, Penny Wong says that there is a need “to end the cycle of violence.”
What “cycle of violence”?
If Tel Aviv was reduced to rubble like Gaza City, Khan Yunis or Shujaiya, the world would stop the war immediately.
WEST BANK
We must not neglect immense tragedy of the occupied West Bank
Just since October 7, Israeli forces and settlers have killed OVER 700 people, including at least 167 children. More than 6,000 people have been injured.
There is NO HAMAS in the West Bank but for years, Israel has been killing on average two kids a week.
In July, Senator Penny Wong said that the Australian Government has imposed financial sanctions and travel bans on seven Israeli settlersfor their violence against Palestinians in the West Bank.
That’s PATHETIC!
The ENTIRE Israeli Government is a bunch of terrorists and extremist criminals – They are guilty of immense, obscene violence against Palestinians SINCE 1948.
In the West Bank, there are now over 700,000 Israeli settlers in vast cities all illegal according to international law …
Protected by the Israeli military, they are rampaging around uprooting millions of olive trees, destroying water wells and torching cars. Israel has demolished 60,000 Palestinian houses in the West Bank.
ICJ Ruling
On 19 July 2024 the ICJ reiterated the illegality of the entire Israel occupation of the West Bank and GAZA. The decision calls for dismantling of settlements and reparations.
The Court specifically said that states like Australia should not recognise Israel’s unlawful presence in occupied territory, nor should they render aid or assistance in maintaining it.
So far, Australia has done next to nothing
BDS
However, states must immediately suspend all investment, trade and scientific, technical and technological cooperation in these areas and engage in a systematic review of all economic, financial, academic, diplomatic and political ties with Israel.
We must recall our ambassador from Tel Aviv;
We must expel Israel’s ambassador from Australia;
FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA
Finally, it’s important for me to say something about our chant heard at rallies around the world – “From the River to the Sea …”
The APOLOGISTS for ISRAEL’s crimes – including Prime Minster Albanese - claim that this slogan is antisemitic or even a call for the annihilation of Israel.
But The charter of the governing Likud party says there will be no Palestinian state between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea.
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly, publicly rejected the possibility of a Palestinian State…
Woops, one more.. cont