Thread by @DefenseAssange

Thread for #AssangeCase Appeal Day 2

Today is the defense’s turn, after yesterday lawyers for the U.S. attempted to undermine a renowned psychiatrist, admitted its prison assurances are “conditional,” and tried to downplay how harsh Assange’s US conditions would be.

Our full report on yesterday's proceedings is here: assangedefense.org/hearing-covera…

Here is our live-tweeted thread from yesterday's proceedings:

https://twitter.com/DefenseAssange/status/1453294259159896064

Barrister Edward Fitzgerald is arguing the defense case now. Here is the defense's skeleton argument for the appeal case, an in-depth response to the U.S. government's attempt to overturn the district court ruling: assangedefense.org/hearing-covera…

At the end of the PDF above, you can find a glossary of commonly used terms, names and acronyms throughout these proceedings.

Fitzgerald has stressed an essential point often overlooked: the judge found that Assange's risk of suicide would reach dangerous levels by the mere *ordering* of his extradition, rather than solely by the likely future prison conditions he would face in the U.S.

Fitzgerald is now addressing Dr Kopelman protecting Stella Moris' privacy by omitting Julian's relationship to her in his first report; in fact the court was well aware of the relationship long before the Sept. '20 hearing, as the judge noted herself.

Judge Baraitser found Dr Kopelman's decision to be an "an understandable human response to Ms. Morris’s predicament."

Furthermore, "I did not accept that Professor Kopelman failed in his duty to the court when he did not disclose Ms. Morris’s relationship with Mr. Assange."

Fitzgerald weaving in responses to Lewis's comments from yesterday, such as the prosecution's claim that Dr Crosby is "just a GP and a friend of Assange" -- in fact she's an expert on physical & psychological impact of torture who took an interest in the case due to its severity

The prosecution spent considerable time yesterday complaining to the High Court that the District Judge preferred Dr Kopelman to its own psychiatrist, Dr Blackwood, and that she didn’t explain why. Fitzgerald is laying out that the judge did explain this and the reasons are clear

The US yest said Kopelman was the only doctor to find Assange is on the autism spectrum. From the ruling: Dr Deeley "found that he met the diagnostic criteria for an autism spectrum disorder albeit that his was 'a high
functioning autistic case' and Asperger’s syndrome disorder"

Court is now in recess for lunch. Julian cannot be seen in the remote viewing box in Belmarsh. #AssangeCase

Stella Moris yesterday:

https://twitter.com/StellaMoris1/status/1453452062163877892

Court is back in session, with Edward Fitzgerald QC continuing. #AssangeCase

Fitzgerald concluded his portion (grounds 1, 3 & 4, dealing with psychiatric testimony, as outlined here: assangedefense.org/hearing-covera…), and now Mark Summers QC argues for the defense against US appeal arguments 2 & 5, dealing with the US's so-called "assurances"

We'll continue to update this with more from the morning's session and then this afternoon's, but today's report so far is here: assangedefense.org/hearing-covera…

The defense argues that the US assurances regarding prison conditions 1) have been given after the district judge ruling (after evidentiary stage), 2) address only 2 of the 7 bases for the finding of a substantial risk of suicide

3) don't even adequately address the limited issues they purport to address (on this point the defense marshals the most evidence in its skeleton argument), and 4) can't be considered in good faith when considering the US vindictiveness, particularly the CIA's vituperative plans

The prosecution says that the judge should have notified them ahead of time that she was "minded" to find Assange's suicide risk to be too high, so that they could have provided these assurances during the evidentiary stage.

But as Summers points out for the defense, SAMs and solitary confinement and ADX Florence were continuously points of discussion throughout the extradition hearing. The US could have taken them off the table at any time. #AssangeCase

The judge addressed this very point in her ruling. In fact, she said, "[US attorney and witness] Mr. Kromberg acknowledged that their imposition is possible."

But even taking the assurances at their word, "The newly proffered and conditional assurances do not in fact remove the real risk of detention on SAMs or on ADX. They certainly do not remove the very real risk of detention in administrative segregation."

The SAMs assurance "Does not prevent the imposition of SAMs at all. It expressly reserves to the USA the power to impose SAMs on Mr Assange ‘in the event that, after entry of this assurance, he was to commit any future act that met the test for the imposition of a SAM pursuant"

US prisons isolate by other means too: "The assurances attempt to address one notorious prison regime and one notorious prison, & say nothing about any of the other severely isolating prison regimes or other notorious prisons in the USA about which the DJ heard copious evidence"

The ADX assurance "bizarrely promises not to detain at ADX ‘pre-trial’ – something which could never happen (ADX is a post-conviction establishment)" and "does not in fact prevent post-conviction detention at ADX."

Summers concludes this portion, "The evidence is overwhelming that regardless of SAMs, and regardless of the ADX, if extradited, Julian Assange is surely headed for extreme isolation, pre- & post-trial." *Even if acquitted*, Assange could be re-arrested and would face isolation.

Back and forth between Summers and justice regarding the degree of relevance of Chelsea Manning's sentence, as she was convicted of offenses alleged in Assange's own indictment.

The prosecution has pointed to shorter sentences of Jeffrey Sterling, Daniel Hale, Reality Winner as evidence Assange might not get decades in jail. The obvious corollary should be Manning's sentence, as she leaked the docs Assange is charged with publishing. She got 35 years.

This is relevant to the US 'assurance' Assange could be transferred to an Australian prison. Assange's US case would cycle through many appeals over many years. "On the evidence, Mr Assange will most likely be dead before [this assurance] can have any purchase, if it ever could."

Summers notes that the *prosecution*, not the US DOJ, has made this assurance, and the improper conflation has been used against defendants before. The defense cites a Spanish case in which the prosecution made this assurance and then the DOJ denied it.

Assurance cannot be trusted as it is caveated, it is conditional, and it is insufficient. "Nothing about this case is normal," Summers says.

Assurances cannot be trusted from the same government that made serious plans to render, kidnap, and even discussed poisoning Mr Assange.

End of Mark Summers' argument. James Lewis QC rises for the prosecution's response. Lewis begins by suggesting Manning's sentence isn't relevant as she was tried in a court martial. #AssangeCase

Lewis contesting defense claims that assurances could have been provided when a witness pointed out that the fact that assurances had not been given was a sign ADX/SAMs were likely.

Lewis: to give assurances before this stage, the prosecution would have had to "hinder its own case" by denigrating US prisons unnecessarily

Lewis: assurances are never unconditional, they "aren't given out like Smarties," they're carefully considered

Lewis again attempting to deny the US practices solitary confinement, again says Assange could meet with his lawyer "on unlimited occasions."

Could find countless similar explanations but just as one example, from National Immigrant Justice Center: "The hole, AdSeg, protective custody, SMU, SHU—are all terms used to refer to solitary confinement, a form of incarceration where a prisoner is locked up for 23 hours a day"

"Prisons often hide behind these rhetorical labels to avoid scrutiny under legal sanctions that prohibit indefinite placement in solitary confinement and require due process for those who are sentenced." immigrantjustice.org/staff/blog/cou…

Lewis concludes. Justice raises that members of the press have requested the affidavits referred to, particularly from Kromberg. Lewis says the US might want to redact some elements.

That will be decided between the parties subsequently. Court is now adjourned. #AssangeCase

No date given as to when we can expect the High Court ruling. Likely a matter of weeks if not months. #AssangeCase

Full report here: assangedefense.org/hearing-covera…