US Marshal Shuts Down for Security Theatre


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Awake, Bitcoin, Canada, Philosophy, Police State, Rant, Sovereignty, States | Posted on 15-11-2014

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

So Deputy United States Marshal Criminal Investigator Maxime Vales (or one of his criminal cohorts) violated the TERM & CONDITIONS for the use of this site to view this (now password protected) page:

He then contacted my Canadian hosting provider about it and had them take my site down today. (I’ve since gotten it back up, obviously!)

The post is about an Ars Technica article that falsely claims that this article (.onion link requires TOR) contains death threats against Katherine Bolan Forrest, who is the judge in the “Silk Road” case against Ross Ulbricht. There is no death threat in there. It’s not nice, but it isn’t a death threat either. Ars Technica lied.

For the sake of ease, completeness, and transparency (something that is completely foreign to government), I posted the entire unredacted, uncensored article (it’s not hard to find – more info below). This seems to have pissed off the US Marshals who sent this to my hosting provider:

Please be advised that the personal security of a United States Marshals Service protected person has been threatened by way of dox. United States District Court Judge Katherine Bolan Forrest’s restricted personal identifiable information, in violation of the Court Security Act of 2007 has been made public on the below listed website that is connected to GoDaddy as the sponsoring registrar. I am requesting that this restricted personal information be immediately removed from the website in order to ensure that no further threats to the security of Judge Forrest are carried out. I am also requesting that a representative from the legal department contact me as soon as possible regarding this sensitive matter.

This is nothing more than security theatre and scare-mongering. If anyone were to do anything to that judge, it would already have happened.

The original dox (.onion link requires TOR) link from the wiki site now returns a 404, but the dox archive (.onion link requires TOR) is still up, and the dox can be found here (.onion link requires TOR).

None of these things are difficult to find. Whether or not I publish the information is completely irrelevant to the security of the judge. Like, FFS… Justin Bieber has dox published (.onion link requires TOR), and he’s still alive!!! There are probably a lot more crazies out there that want him dead.


I have made it explicitly clear that nobody in any government position is welcome at That includes US marshals.

Unless Maxime Vales is psychic, I really have no clue how he could possibly abide by the T&C and know what was on that page, or any page at for that matter.


There is no law against publishing publicly available information, which the information at the links above is.

This does nothing to protect the judge at all as I’ve outline above just how simple it is to find the information. A blog dedicated to technology, voluntaryism, and personal points of interest that has near zero readership except for a few popular posts isn’t going to make the smallest impact at all.

This is merely overreach and an attempt to scare me and others from publishing information that the US police state finds inconvenient.

If this can happen to me, it can happen to you. Whether or not you agree with anything I say isn’t particularly relevant. The point to free speech is to tolerate dissenting opinions.


Maxime Vales is really a bit of a douche. Instead of contacting me and asking nicely, he went nuclear to have my site taken down.

But I most certainly would have taken it down had he just asked. Albeit, I would have to charge him a reasonable service fee. I think 144,341 bitcoins plus an additional 29,659 bitcoins as an “administrative fee” would be reasonable. (Ross certainly wouldn’t need to worry about paying for his defense anymore.)


Well, I certainly don’t want armed thugs harassing me for publishing publicly available information, so I’ve password protected the page for the moment. I’m a bit worried that the 8 character, lower case password might be easy to guess. Nah. I’m not worried. I’m sure it’s just fine.

If anyone has any good information, my ears are open.


Now, I know that some people will say that it’s douchey to post dox information. Perhaps it is. But it’s more important to be open, transparent, and complete.

The point of my blog post was to point out blatant lies in the presstitute corporate-whore dinosaur lamestream media. They regular twist facts and often blatantly lie. This was one of those cases.

The issue was about a darkweb wiki post. I posted the entire article along with a link to it. Everything could be verified by checking my own post, and by checking the original.

You see, some of us out here actually believe in free speech (even speech that some people don’t like) and honesty, which we don’t get from the lamestream media.

I’m not interested in shining a flashlight on lies if I can shine a spotlight.





Jesus Is an Anarchist (Mirrored essay)


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Awake, Logic, Philosophy, Religion, Sovereignty, States | Posted on 26-04-2014


There is an excellent essay called “Jesus Is an Anarchist” at

But it seems like is no longer maintained, and the essay may disappear at some point. I’m mirroring it here to ensure that it is available in at least 1 other place. When the “” graphic logo is gone, then you’ll know that it’s disappeared.

This essay is an excellent read for anyone looking to learn a bit more about Jesus, Christianity, or anarchism. You don’t need to be religious to get a lot out of this essay, and you don’t need to be an anarchist to get a lot out of it.

As a side note, anyone interested in the occult will get some pretty deep insight here. I should also note that those with a superficial understanding of the occult will likely not understand that last sentence in the least. (“Occult” means “hidden”, and Redford strips away some superficial occult layers in this essay.)

Those who are more serious about reading and understanding might do well to read along with a KJV at the ready. Please note that there is a reference in the essay that appears to be a typo.

The complete essay is available at the bottom of this page as a zipped download.


Jesus Is an Anarchist

(A free-market/libertarian anarchist, that is–otherwise what is called an anarcho-capitalist.)

by James Redford

The above title may seem like strong words, for surely that can’t be correct? Jesus an anarchist? One must be joking, right?

Read the rest of this entry »

What Nobody Noticed About the Bundy Ranch Protests…


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Awake, Logic, Police, Police State, Politics, Sovereignty | Posted on 21-04-2014


BLM is already there. Protesters show up. People get tased, assaulted, and arrested.

More protesters show up. A lot more. Some have guns. Nobody gets tased, assaulted, or arrested. Nobody gets hurt.

Something to think about.

Will the UK Break Treaties and Violate the Rule of Law?


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Awake, Police State, Politics, Sovereignty, States | Posted on 17-08-2012


I suppose that it is no shock to anyone that the rule of law died long ago in many of the modern western police states, including the United Kingdom. Now with Julian Assange granted asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy, the UK is blatantly flaunting the fact that it is a lawless country of thugs where the rule of law is rotting in a shallow grave as the UK threatens to break 2 international treaties.

But to find out that the rule of law was murdered so long ago? Yes. The rule of law has been dead since at least 1987 when the UK passed the “Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987”. But before that, let’s look at the relevant treaty and the relevant section.

The “Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961” is the treaty applicable to diplomatic missions, and specifies the terms for the “premises” of a diplomatic mission, i.e. the embassy. (You can find the original here [PDF].) Article 22 reads:

1. The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.

This is perfectly clear. There is no ambiguity. However, “inviolable” is a strong word that the UK government apparently may not understand. Perhaps English is a second language for them, in which case they may be excused.

The “Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987” can be found here. Part 1, section 1 (Aquisition and loss by land of diplomatic or consular status.), subsection 3 reads:

In no case is land to be regarded as a State’s diplomatic or consular premises for the purposes of any enactment or rule of law unless it has been so accepted or the Secretary of State has given that State consent under this section in relation to it; and if—

(a) a State ceases to use land for the purposes of its mission or exclusively for the purposes of a consular post; or
(b) the Secretary of State withdraws his acceptance or consent in relation to land,

it thereupon ceases to be diplomatic or consular premises for the purposes of all enactments and rules of law.

Essentially, that means that any diplomatic mission (embassy) in the UK has no diplomatic status if they “don’t feel like it” or “change their mind”. That is not any kind of law. You cannot simply make a law that you get to decide when and/or if it is enacted. This is a fundamental violation of the rule of law.

Further, the “Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961” is a treaty to which the UK is a party. They will be breaking this treaty if they revoke the status of the Ecuadorian embassy, because diplomatic missions are “inviolable”.

Article 56 of the “Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)” reads:

Denunciation of or withdrawal from a treaty containing no provision regarding termination, denunciation or withdrawal

1. A treaty which contains no provision regarding its termination and which does not provide for denunciation or withdrawal is not subject to denunciation or withdrawal unless:
(a) it is established that the parties intended to admit the possibility of denunciation or withdrawal; or
(b) a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treaty.

2. A party shall give not less than twelve months’ notice of its intention to denounce or withdraw from a treaty under paragraph 1.

Has the UK given all 111 party countries and 15 signatories notice? If not, then they’re breaking the treaty.

But if the UK breaks the “Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961”, then it necessarily breaks the “Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)”. I think that’s called “getting two birds stoned at once“.

Ecuador is perfectly within their rights to grant asylum to Julian Assange. The UK is not within its rights to violate a sovereign nation. Not that it stopped it in Afghanistan or Iraq or Argentina or… Well, you get the picture.

This pattern of “escape clauses” closely resembles the way in which you can hear small children in an elementary school playground making up rules that guarantee that they win their game, and that nobody else can possibly do anything to them. It’s a common pattern, and can also be found in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 29, section 3:

These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Again, this is the same pattern where they explicitly state that if they do not wish to honour their obligations, they won’t.

Should it be any surprise that the United Kingdom is any less criminal than the United Nations?

Time will tell if they prove their criminality in this specific case with the fate of Julian Assange on the line.



Julia Gillard is a Homophobic… -NSFW-


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Australia, Idiotic Statements, Philosophy, Politics, Religion, Sovereignty, States | Posted on 15-06-2011

Tags: , ,

Pink Triangle So I’m driving down the road today and listening to the Australian Parliament on the radio. And there’s a question for Julia Gillard, the Australian Prime Minister.

Will Australia issue single, non-married adults outside of Australia a letter of non-impediment to marriage?

To which she gives a resounding NO. She flat out says that gays can’t get married here, and Australia won’t allow them to get married outside of Australia. WTF?

An independent MP, Andrew Wilkie, called it “petty and mean-spirited.”  (Reference: Marriage ban is “petty & mean,” MP tells Gillard)

Well… That’s a fucking understatement! Petty? Mean-spirited? Jesus… It’s fucking de-humanizing.

It’s just simply so very WRONG on so many levels.

First, if marriage is a religious institution, then what business is it of the state to interfere in religion?

If the government wants to be in the business of registering civil unions, then fine. But that still makes the Assie wankers in Canberra a bunch of homophobic douche bags.

Second, if someone is outside of a sovereign state and in another sovereign state, they should be bound by the laws of the state they are physically located in.

Trying to export laws from a sovereign state is simply unacceptable. It is not the business of the state to dictate what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes.

And what business is it of the Australian government WHO an Australian gets married to outside of Australia? How does that become any of their concern or business? They can certainly be the bigoted assholes they are and not recognize the marriage, but to prevent it in the first place?

Petty and mean-spirited is the nicest way to put what happens in Canberra.

Let’s try this on for size… How about we all run around Australia and start killing all the fags! Yeah. That’s good. Heck, it’s a crime in Uganda, and the penalty is death, so why not shoot a dyke in the name of justice?

That’s idiotic! But Australia wants to do the same thing: Export laws abroad.

I’m not gay, but I have a vested interest – when a government feels justified in oppressing its people, we all lose.

Julia Gillard is a disgraceful human being. She makes me sick.

She’s the kind of person that I can imagine Diogenes of Sinope spitting in her face and saying he couldn’t find a worse place. It would be true.

Keep in mind that Australians were hunting Aborigines like animals less than 50 years ago.  Australia has a long and rich history of bigotry and oppression. Julia Gillard only adds to that.

Disgusted in Melbourne,

Ryan Smyth

OECD Advocates Violation of Sovereignty


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Politics, Sovereignty, States | Posted on 29-03-2011

The OECD is criticizing Canada of non-prosecution of Canadian nationals bribing foreign officials while outside of Canada, the CBC is reporting.

The OECD report recommends that Canada:

  • Amend its CFPOA legislation so it applies to bribery related to all international business, not just business “for profit.”
  • Ensure that sanctions for violations are proportionate and effective.
  • Do whatever is needed to prosecute Canadian nationals for overseas bribes of foreign public officials.
  • Ensure that police and prosecutors know that Canada’s relationship with a foreign state must not affect decisions on whether to prosecute.

This is an absolute travesty. The Canadian government has no jurisdiction outside of Canada, and what Canadians do outside of Canada is none of the Canadian governments concern when it comes to prosecution.

This all harkens back to the same point I made a while back in 2 places: On Sovereignty and States (Wikileaks and Child Sex Tourism) and This is Not the United States of Planet Earth.

It is the job of the state where the bribe takes place to prosecute the offense.

In many places in the world, corruption acts as a kind of grease to lubricate the system and keep things moving. Sure it’s a bad way of doing things, but it is NOT the job of other countries to pass moral judgement on other cultures for non-violent ways of doing things. And it is most certainly not the place of the OECD to judge.

Flat out – the OECD is wrong. Morally, ethically, and legally. Canada should do exactly nothing to prosecute Canadians for what they do overseas. Leave prosecutions to the jurisdiction where the offense takes place.

This is Not the United States of Planet Earth


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Politics, Sovereignty, States, Wikileaks | Posted on 09-01-2011

Tags: ,

No Rule Of Law in the United States of Planet EarthArrogance and idiocy have champions world wide, but none more so than in the United States of America, where the Rule of Law is a total joke.

American political and legal responses to Julian Assange and Wikileaks demonstrate a flagrant disregard for established conventions such as the Rule of Law, and reveal American politicians and their legal cohorts as nothing short of arrogant, idiotic thugs. (Apologies to any thugees for any unintended insult there.)

A recent article from the National Law Journal at illustrates this in all it’s dark splendor.

Journalism WikiLeaks Style

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, among others, have called for an espionage prosecution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. The thrust of their argument is that Assange has violated § 793(e) of the Espionage Act by willfully releasing U.S. documents and information relating to the national defense that he had reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.

There are 2 points there.

  1. That he violated § 793(e) of the Espionage Act
  2. Some injury could be caused to the US or some advantage given to another country

The first point assumes that US law extends world wide. Ahem. Where do these people get off assuming that they can enforce their laws throughout the rest of the world? Do the words delusional and insane ring any bells?

The US accounts for about 4.51% of the world population ( Are we to assume that this small minority is to rule over the rest of us?

Yet the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has maintained a stony silence on the prospects for such a prosecution and has only stated that it is investigating the matter.

They’re probably silent because they have no legal way to prosecute a foreign national for something they did outside the US and outside US jurisdiction.

Indeed, it is more than likely that no such prosecution will occur. This is in direct contrast to the fate of the original leaker, Pfc. Bradley Manning. Manning, whether under § 793(e) or other related charges, will likely spend the remainder of his life in a military prison.

What differentiates the destinies of Manning, the leaker, and Assange, the publisher, under the Espionage Act? The result is explained by the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by the attorney general.

Let me translate that into English: Get ready for some slick bullshit.

On one hand, Manning is, quite frankly, a dead duck.

This is true. And also where the truth basically stops.

While on duty in Afghanistan, he downloaded 251,287 State Department documents and passed them through unknown intermediaries to WikiLeaks. Manning’s fate is illuminated by the court-martial of Lt. Cmdr. Matthew Diaz. Diaz was a staff judge advocate at the Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility. Contrary to orders, Diaz downloaded a classified list of detainees (through the very computer system Manning used) and conveyed it to a private attorney in New York. In a manner decidedly less sophisticated than Manning’s use of an external memory device, Diaz transmitted the information by cutting the printout of names into 20 strips and mailing the strips in a Valentine’s card to the attorney. The attorney turned Diaz in to the Navy, presumably motivated by a healthy fear of the Espionage Act provision that punishes receivers of classified information.

Diaz’s lawyer violated laws by doing that. I wonder if he was prosecuted for that…

Diaz’s sentence was affirmed last July and there is no material difference between his case and Manning’s under the espionage statute except the magnitude of the disclosure. As Diaz went, so goes Manning.

And so ends truth.

Assange’s case is not materially different from Manning’s except that he is the receiver of the documents, not the original thief.

This is blatantly false. Assange is under no obligation, moral, ethical or legal, to comply with any US laws. He is not a citizen of the US. He was not in any US jurisdiction. He was not under the employ of any US government agency.

Assange obtains no cover from the First Amendment.

How is the First Amendment even relevant? He’s not in the US. He’s not a US citizen.

However, let’s entertain this fantasy. Let’s assume that the right to free speech is an issue. Let’s then rephrase that last sentence:

Assange has no right to free speech.

Or perhaps a weaker version:

Assange obtains no cover from the right to free speech.

Let’s call a spade a fucking shovel. The right to free speech is a basic right and when it is limited by a government, we call that censorship and oppression. Free speech can only be voluntarily limited by someone who chooses to limit their speech.

Justice Byron White, in his dissent in the Pentagon Papers case, undisputedly stated that prior restraint of publication would rarely be allowed but that post-publication prosecution was not automatically barred.

In other words, “you are free to speak, but then we are free to throw you in prison.” Seriously. WTF? This boils down to basic human rights only being applicable when it is convenient. Otherwise, the US government feels no obligation to honor its word and no obligation to honor its commitments.

Congress “has apparently been satisfied to rely on criminal sanctions [in the Espionage Act] and their deterrent effect on the responsible, as well as the irresponsible, press.”

Here “responsible press” means nothing more than “those we like” and “irresponsible press” means nothing more than “those we don’t like”. Flipping that around a bit, it could be a matter of “those that like/dislike us”.

As with Manning, there is no dispute that the State Department information was enough to trigger the application of the statute to Assange.

Yes there is a fucking dispute! How does the US justify applying its laws world wide? This is the dispute.

The stolen material was related to various national defense issues and, indeed, everything Manning took was from a U.S. computer system that provided access to documents with a “Secret” classification. Then, all of it was transmitted to Assange.

So? Is there a point here? It is not a criminal offense to receive information in most countries.

The inclusion of the trivial in the diplomatic cables does not vitiate the importance of the major revelations to the national defense or the injury done to U.S. diplomatic relations from their revelation. For instance, the information on Korea in various published cables ranges from North Korea’s desire to have an Eric Clapton concert in Pyongyang to please Kim Jong Il’s second son to the assertion by a Chinese government official that China would support the reunification of Korea under the control of Seoul.

None of that is relevant. “North Korea’s desire to have an Eric Clapton concert in Pyongyang to please Kim Jong Il’s second son” only makes North Korea look more insane, and that’s not an offense according to the Americans, but is it any less embarassing for the North Koreans?

Injury to the US is irrelevant. Nobody causes more injury to the US than the US government. The injury isn’t caused by Wikileaks; the injury is caused by the US government. It’s pretty simple: Don’t do things that you are ashamed of doing.

Clinton’s argument that the release of such documents causes an injury to national interests or defense because they cause foreign sources of information to dry up seems intuitively true.

Ahem… Did she just say what I thought she said? Let me phrase that:

Clinton’s argument that the release of such documents causes an injury to national interests or defense because they make it harder for US espionage efforts seems intuitively true.

So, it’s ok for YOU to engauge in espionage, but nobody else?

Ahem… Rule of Law.

That bears repeating…

Ahem… *cough* fuck you *cough* RULE OF LAW.

Under the Espionage Act, a leaker or subsequent publisher who makes a conscious choice to communicate secret government information has acted willfully under the act and has little to argue about innocent intent.

That would be fine and grand IF US jurisdiction applied world wide. This is not “the United States of Planet Earth”.

Indeed, Assange openly declared on the WikiLeaks Web site that WikiLeaks seeks to reveal secret information to increase governmental transparency. WikiLeaks “provide[s] an innovative, secure and anonymous way for independent sources…to leak information to our journalists” and “publish[es] material…while keeping the identity of our sources anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices.”

Material is sent to WikiLeaks via various clandestine means such as an electronic drop box, and sources are explicitly protected by technical means such as the deliberate refusal to maintain transmission logs.

“Clandestine means”? Electronic drop boxes are used world wide by every day people. I use them myself. There is nothing clandestine about them. They are standard tools used in numerous industries. Most of us call it “FTP” though.

As for refusing to maintain logs, there is nothing illegal about that. After seeing just how horribly the US government behaves, it would probably be a good idea for more people to not maintain logs.

In fact, until recent revisions made under the current threat of prosecution, the Web site provided direct evidence of specific intent to encourage leaking, to conspire with the leakers to publish the information and to publish the material without regard to legal consequences.

Again, if we lived in the United States of Planet Earth, that might mean something. It is not the business of the United States of America to inflict its laws on the rest of the planet.

One major hole in the case against Assange is the lack of any evidence that Manning gave the information to Assange. Manning reportedly will not cooperate with prosecutors and one of Manning’s confidants, Adrian Lamo, apparently has nothing other than his memory to confirm that Manning told him that the material was sent to Assange. In addition, Lamo claims that the FBI has the Manning information, as it has seized his hard drive. However, even without their testimony, it is perfectly clear that Manning had the information and that Assange received, edited and published it. Res ipsa loquitur.

This is more harping on the same old points. It doesn’t address anything.

Why, then, would Assange escape the legal consequences of WikiLeaks’ publications? Initially, it appears that no publisher has ever been prosecuted under the Espionage Act. For example, in 1942, the Chicago Tribune published a news story on the Battle of Midway that stated that the United States had broken Japanese codes and yet avoided prosecution. DOJ seems to maintain an unwritten policy against publisher prosecution.

Ahem. Rule of Law. They’re playing favorites. Stop making excuses.

It is not commonly recognized that the WikiLeaks disclosure of the State Department material was done in concert with The New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde and El País. WikiLeaks gave each news organization access to State Department material prior to publication, allowed each to edit and develop stories from the material and coordinated the release of those stories. In terms of legal liability, the first group in jeopardy is Assange and these five publishers, and then essentially all world media that rebroadcast the material.

Again, the height of American arrogance in assuming that it can inflict its laws on the rest of the world. “All world media that rebroadcast the material”. Ahem. They’re not in the US. How can you prosecute people that don’t live inside of your jurisdiction?

In other words, Assange arranged for these five principal world news organizations to be co-equal publishers with WikiLeaks. As such, they are co-equally guilty with Assange under the Espionage Act.

The arrogance is unmatched.

To charge Assange and not charge, for example, The New York Times, would lead to devastating charges of unfairness both outside and inside the courtroom. As Assange is guilty, so are the five publications.

Arrogance in the extreme. Veiled under the guise of “unfairness”? Ahem. Rule of Law.

These people have no level that they will not stoop to. They are deluded, evil, vindictive, and dangerous.

Assange, partly as a result of financial pressures, now plans to begin sharing the State Department materials with a wider group of news organizations. Is DOJ then going to charge all these news organizations as co-defendants? The answer is obviously “No” and is based on the traditional discretion of the prosecutor to refrain from charging every crime that could be charged against every individual who might be a criminal. DOJ will not create such a distinguished list of media defendants and become the laughingstock of Western democracy.

They already are a laughingstock. What’s really stopping them? The fact that they simply cannot do it. They might have a lot of power, but for the “Department of Justice” to attempt to prosecute every major news agency and countless individuals world wide is sheer insanity.

In summary, let’s sweep away the tendentious arguments that Assange should not be extradited to the United States or that it is a violation of due process or other constitutional rights to prosecute him.

Oh, so ignore perfectly good reasons not to prosecute Assange because you can find more?

Any fair analysis of the Espionage Act shows that he is chargeable,

No. It doesn’t. It shows the opposite.

Any fair analysis of the Espionage Act shows that he is chargeable, and yet any fair analysis of the political reality indicates that he is untouchable. The administration is faced with an impossible dilemma — WikiLeaks is joined at the hip with The New York Times et al., and its unofficial policy against charging news organizations protects them all. WikiLeaks, whether acting out of magnanimity or cleverness, cut the major news sources into the deal and in return gained functional immunity from prosecution for espionage.

Immunity from a prosecution that would be illegal anyways.

However, WikiLeaks’ magnanimity or cleverness may not be sufficient to avoid all legal liability.

Again, there’s nothing legal about running around the world harassing people. Wikileaks has no legal liability to the US. They are not in the US. They are not subject to US laws.

Its previous Web site language and numerous public statements made by Assange are sufficient to maintain a charge of conspiracy with Manning and the unidentified intermediaries to leak and publish the material. This was the theory bruited about by Vice President Joe Biden recently.

And Vice President Joe Biden is just as evil an asshole as the rest.

Such a charge avoids the issue of involving the news organizations, as the conspiracy encompasses the first stage of obtaining and transmitting the information by the very means so explicitly set forth on the Web site.

So in other words, you are trying to be clever in how you prosecute “crime”. You are purposefully ignoring “crime” over here, but going after it over “there”.


But, as pointed out, Manning and Lamo have not been forthcoming in detailing how the material was transmitted to Assange, and WikiLeaks is quite emphatic in stating that there is no electronic trail between leaker and publisher. And even if either cooperated with prosecutors, the prosecution turns on Manning’s or Lamo’s words alone and the inference that the conspiracy occurred because the material was taken and subsequently published. This inference might not satisfy the technical requirement for objective corroboration of the conspiracy, and there is certainly the practical problem that the testimony of Manning or Lamo simply might not convince a jury.

Allow me to translate part of that into meaningful, straight, truthful English:

“There is certainly the practical problem that the testimony of Manning or Lamo simply might not win in kangaroo court.”

Make no mistake. Manning will not receive a fair trial, if he even gets one.

In addition, there are ancillary charges of theft, conspiracy to steal and evasion of various secrecy rules, which might be explored as a basis for prosecution. In the end, there is a distinct possibility that, although Assange may avoid espionage charges, he may suffer some criminal conviction.


This shows that the US attitude is to simply go after people that they do not like, and think that they can get. Saying, “he may suffer some criminal conviction” shows an attitude of desperation, desperate to “get him” at any cost and for any reason.

Whatever the outcome of DOJ’s current investigation, there is no certainty that any prosecution will occur soon. The United States is second in extradition priority in the United Kingdom to Sweden, and Assange seems determined to fight the extradition. In light of the uncertainty concerning the espionage and related conspiracy charges, the attorney general will probably allocate more time to making a deal for cooperation with Manning and Lamo, discovering intermediaries and intermediate transactions and, in general, giving form to the interstitial steps taken prior to the actual delivery of the materials to WikiLeaks.

James Ching is a former supervising deputy attorney general at the California Department of Justice.

James Ching accurately represents the deep-rooted evil in the United States of America’s government and legal system.

On Sovereignty and States (Wikileaks and Child Sex Tourism)


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Sovereignty, States, Wikileaks | Posted on 28-12-2010

Tags: , , , , ,

The idea of jurisdiction is central to most states in the world. If you commit an offense in Texas, in addition to being hosed, you’re also unlikely to be tried in California. Similarly, if you sell medical marijuana in California, you’re unlikely to be executed in Malaysia.

There’s a basic concept there. You need to be inside of a jurisdiction to violate its laws.

Unfortunately, some states simply don’t understand the concept very well. The United States of America would be one.

Julian Assange is neither a citizen of the US, nor is he in the US. So just how the fuck do so many US politicians get off trying to figure out what they can charge him with?

1917 Espionage act or not, he isn’t subject to US law outside of the US, so the entire question is moot.

But never mind that there are no laws in the US that could be used to prosecute Julian, they just can’t do it and maintain any semblance of integrity.

Sovereign states are exactly that. And the concept of sovereignty is disappearing. There’s a word for that. i.e. There is a word for infringing on the sovereignty of a state: war. Albeit, it is war of a different sort, but it’s still a form of war.

However, this is nothing new. A few years back a number of countries jumped on the “let’s ignore sovereignty” band-wagon over the child sex tourism issue. In an effort to see who could be more politically correct, several countries made it illegal for any citizen (or permanent resident) to engage in foreign child sex tourism.

For the idiots in the crowd, child sex tourism is bad. Not good. Even worse than that. No. Even worse than even worse than that. Ummm… Get the idea? It’s pure fucking predatory evil.

But it isn’t the place of a state to prosecute for acts done outside of its borders. It is an affront to the state where the action took place. The legality of the action isn’t relevant except in the place where it took place.

For the skeptics in the crowd, let’s try an exercise. A thought experiment if you will:

Imagine you are a teacher. It’s against the law/rules to say the Lord’s Prayer in school. Fine. Now if you go to church and say the Lord’s Prayer there, or pray the Lord’s Prayer at home, should you be punished at school for it?

It’s no different. The cases are the exact same. The school maintains its own rules while the church maintains its own rules and you have your own rules in your own home. No difference.

“Extradition” is the principle that allows different states or jurisdictions to arrest someone and send them to the state or jurisdiction where the offense took place.

Now, ask yourself where would you rather see child-rapists rot? In a prison in Australia, Canada, or in Thailand or Cambodia? I’m willing to be that the conditions in a Cambodian prison are just a little bit worse than they are in the Milton Hilton.

I remember a woman in Cambodia asking me, “Sir, do you want to buy a baby?” Several times even. Ummm… No thanks.

Really bad stuff happens. But it isn’t the business of the state what its people do outside of the state.

It *IS* the business of the state to decide if it wants to hand over its people to another state for prosecution though.

Back to Wikileaks and Julian Assange though…

It isn’t the business of the UK to extradite Julian Assange to Sweden or the United States of America. They have no business in those matters. He has not violated any UK laws.

However, it is the business of the UK to deport Julian Assange to Australia. He is not a UK citizen, but he is an Australian citizen. If he is to be extradited to Sweden, or the US, then it is the business of the Australian government to determine that. For the UK to extradite Julian is for them to overstep their authority as a respectable sovereign state.

There are many cases where states violate other states’ sovereignty, but the current case with Julian Assange is a clear cut and highly visible case.

His worst case scenario should be for the UK to deport him back to Australia.