 Good morning everyone and thank you for joining us for the press conference on the filing of a complaint concerning unconstitutional surveillance of Julian Assange and attorneys and journalists who visited him. I'm Heidi Bogosian. I'll be moderating this morning. We'd like to ask journalists if you haven't already to please turn off your camera and to mute yourself. When we get to the question and answer portion we will ask you to unmute yourself if you have a question to ask. Today we'll be hearing from six speakers. They are Richard Roth, Lead Attorney of the Roth Law Firm, Robert Boyle, Civil Rights and Constitutional Attorney Consulting with Richard Roth on the case, Margaret Ratner-Counselor, Criminal and Civil Rights Attorney and a plaintiff in the case, Deborah Herbeck, a media attorney, John Getz, a journalist who visited Julian Assange and Nathan Fuller, Director of the Assange Defense Committee. We will begin with Richard Roth. Richard, thank you. Heidi, thank you for having me and thank you for everyone attending. We commenced the lawsuit this morning on behalf of several people who actually went to the Ecuadorian Embassy to visit Julian Assange and unbeknownst to them, we've learned through several sources that in fact all of their equipment when they went into the embassy were taken, imaged and in addition their conversations were recorded by a company at the direction of Mike Pompeo of the CIA. It is somewhat startling that in light of the Fourth Amendment protection we have in the Constitution that the federal government would actually go ahead and take this confidential information, some of which the attorney-client privilege, some of which were the journalists, and even some of which were doctors that visited Mr. Assange. So we commenced an action against the CIA, Mr. Pompeo and the various entities that were engaged in these nefarious activities based on the Fourth Amendment for damages and for the return of all this information, which was improperly gathered during the visits to Mr. Assange. You're muted. How do you mute it? Apologies. Thank you for that, Richard. Now we will hear from Robert Boyle, a New York civil rights and constitutional law attorney who is consulting with Mr. Roth. Good morning everyone. Yes, my name is Robert Boyle and I'm an attorney here in New York City and I'm consulting with Attorney Roth on this case. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects U.S. citizens from being subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures. That fundamental principle applies to searches and seizures directed toward U.S. citizens by U.S. law enforcement anywhere in the world. The Fourth Amendment's protections were blatantly violated here. The contents of the plaintiff's digital devices were secretly copied by security personnel recruited by the CIA and then that information was turned over. This was all part of an intentional plan. The seizure and copying of the digital information contained in people's devices, you know, it does not only violate the plaintiff's rights and tangentially and we'll get to this more later, Mr. Assange's rights. But think of what we store in our phones and our computers, birthdays, bank information, dates of birth, all of this was recorded and then given over to the Central Intelligence Agency. So the violations of the privacy rights here were particularly egregious. Of course, Mr. Assange's rights, I would submit to a fair trial have now been tainted, if not destroyed. The recording of meetings with friends, with lawyers, the copying of his attorneys and friends' digital information taints the criminal prosecution because now the government knows the contents of those communications. And there should be sanctions even up to dismissal of those charges or withdrawal of an extradition request in response to these blatantly unconstitutional activities. Thank you. Thank you, Bob. And now we'll hear from Margaret Ratner-Kunzler, a criminal and civil rights attorney and also a plaintiff in the case. As a criminal attorney, I don't think that there's anything worse than your opposition listening in on what your plans are, what you intend to do, and your conversations. It's really, it's a terrible thing and it's treated by the United States courts as a terrible thing. This is not something that hasn't happened very occasionally in the US and the result has very often been a dismissal of the indictment. I'll give you one example and there are others who will give others. In the wounded case, there was an FBI agent who listened in at the door and reported. He also did a couple of other things like dealing with a witness. The judge in that case dismissed the indictment for gross misconduct. And gross misconduct is exactly what has happened here. And I don't understand how the CIA, I guess through the insanity of Pompeo, could think that they could do this. This is so outrageous that it's beyond my comprehension. Thank you, Margaret. Now we'll hear from Deborah Herbeck, a media attorney who has visited Mr. Assange. Good morning. I am a media lawyer and I have represented WikiLeaks journalists and videographers. I visited Julian Assange at the Ecuador Embassy in London a few times during his stay there to discuss sensitive legal matters. On arrival, there was a strict protocol for the protection of Julian, we were told. Passports, mobile phones, cameras, laptops, reporting devices and other electronic equipment were turned over to the security guards in the lobby. We learned much later through a criminal investigation under the supervision of a court in Spain that while visitors like me were meeting with Julian in the embassy conference room, the guards next door were taking apart our phones, removing and photographing SIM cards and we believed downloading data from our electronic equipment. Their boss, David Morales from UC Global, who appears to have been recruited by the CIA through the associates of Sheldon Adelson during a visit to a tech conference, was making regular trips to Washington, DC, to New York, to Las Vegas, reportedly to hand over thumb drives and to receive further instructions from his US government handlers. In other words, during our meetings with Julian at the embassy, recordings of our confidential conversations and the contents of our electronic devices were being delivered into the hands of the United States government. I'm a New York lawyer. I have the right to assume that the US government is not listening to my private and privileged conversations with my clients and that information about other clients and cases I may have on my phone or laptop are secure from illegal government intrusion. This is not just a violation of our constitutional rights. This is an outrage. Thank you. Next, we'll hear from John Getz, a journalist who also visited Mr. Assange. Yeah, good morning. My name is John Getz and I work. I'm the editor of investigations for the German public broadcaster NDR. And between 2011 and 2017, together with the Suddeutsche Zeitung, we were in a partnership. Well, we were often partners, but at that way with WikiLeaks when it came to doing different stories. And we went to the embassy. I went to the embassy repeatedly in that time, also 2015, 16, 17, to discuss stories and basically to have kind of, you know, editorial discussions about stories we were going to do or not do. And I find it quite disturbing that what was essentially a private editorial situation was conceivably or possibly or likely being listened to. The procedure that the others have spoken about was also the procedure that I experienced in the many times I went to the embassy that my phone was taken. Often other electronic stuff was there. I'd love to find out exactly what was done. I also know because I am and the broadcaster NDR is behind this, we also sued UC Global in the Spanish case for having listened to our conversations. And we found in that process, a series of documents that they prepared about my meetings with Assange when they're. And so I just find it very disturbing. And I thought that we were protected, especially as an American citizen by the Fourth Amendment. Thank you, John. Our final speaker is Nathan Fuller. Nathan is Director of the Assange Defense Committee. Thanks, Heidi. And the Assange Defense Committee can be found at AssangeDefense.org. I just want to give an overview of, put this in context a little bit. I remind people Julian Assange is facing extradition from the UK to the United States, where he's charged an unprecedented charges for publishing. Julian is currently detained in the maximum security Belmarsh prison in London. He's been there for three and a half years. Nearly three full years of which has been for no conviction at all. He's just imprisoned because the US has requested his extradition. And so here in the US, we're fighting against that extradition, but we're also building a support network in the event that he is ultimately extradited. And we want to educate the public about the dangers that the prosecution poses to all of our basic rights. Our journalists write to publish what is in the public interest and our own right to know what our governments are doing in our name. And the public should know the lengths that its own government is willing to go to, to silence the journalist who publishes information embarrassing to the regime, spying on his conversations, seizing devices of his visitors, and even plotting to kidnap and kill him as Yahoo News reported, all while he was a political assailee of Ecuador. So this should worry anybody who values investigative journalists and journalism and the and the unprecedented and should be aware of the unprecedented threat that this prosecution poses to it. So please check out assangedefense.org. We have upcoming events listed on our events page and we keep covering the extradition proceedings court reports so you can go there for more information. Thank you, Nathan. And now we will entertain questions. I see that a few hands are already raised. For others, please push the button inside the Zoom to raise your hand, and we will call on you one at a time. When called on, please state your name and your media affiliation. Thank you. Are you going to tell us who you're calling? Yes, Trevor, are you going to be calling on people? Or shall I just start while you're waiting? Yes, thank you. Please do. Hello, my name is Joshua Rosenberg. I'm a UK based legal journalist, and I've been covering this case really since the start. I appreciate that you're ultimately suggesting that this should lead to the withdrawal of the application for extradition. But in the meantime, are you alleging that there's any breach of English law? And are you saying that this should have any impact on the proceedings in England and Wales at the moment? This is Richard Roth. I can answer that. We are alleging that it is a breach of the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. Bob, you can chime in as well. Any US citizen, whether they're in the country or not, is entitled to the search and seizure clause to not be searched or have their information seized. So it is really specific to the US Constitution and not to British law. But I would imagine that British law has something parallel, but this lawsuit is in the US. It is in New York. It is on behalf of US citizens, and it is for a violation of the US Constitution. So it's not going to have any impact on the current proceedings in the United Kingdom unless you persuade the US government to withdraw the extradition request. Bob, I think that's fair. You're muted, Bob. Bob, you're muted. Certainly that's a question that could be better answered by the attorneys representing Mr. Assange in the extradition proceeding. But this particular case is seeking relief in the US courts for violation of US constitutional rights. It may very well have an effect legally in the UK. But that's something you should post to his attorneys in that proceeding. Okay. Thank you very much. I'd also like to, I think Deborah would like to comment on that as well. I just had a brief, Bob kind of handled it, but I just had a brief, wanted to make the point that one of the components of whether extradition is appropriate is whether Mr. Assange is likely to have a fair trial in the US. And this is just one of many indications that that's not in fact the case. So I would imagine that the behavior should certainly should have an impact. Mr. Gillum. Mr. Gillum. Oh, hi. Can you all hear me okay? Yes. Okay. Sorry, I'm having a camera trouble so I apologize. So I'm Jack Gillum with Bloomberg News on the technology team. I just had a question. I was interested in your complaint about this FTP server that was used for what appear to be conversations. And I assume I use some clarification that that included copies of phones or laptops or other data that was provided to the CIA. I'm just wondering if you could just provide a little more detail about how you came to know of that transmission process. I mean, that's pretty interesting way for the government to get that information. And if you could also a second question if you could speak to if there were any other government agencies such as the Justice Department or other investigators under either the current or last administration that may have gotten access to this data as well. I know you're only suing the CIA but I wasn't sure if other US agencies may have gotten a copy of this too. Thank you very much. Sure. So I can take that. There is a Spanish court proceeding. There's a proceeding going on in Spain where all of this information is coming out. In fact, they've subpoenaed Mike Pompeo to testify. And what we've learned from this proceeding, although a lot of it is sealed, is that there was a process by which we believe the CIA actually implemented a procedure which the CIA implemented to obtain not only the recordings that is the conversations that were had by the Assange and his lawyers Assange and his doctors, but also as Deborah pointed out, very specifically, when one went into the Ecuadorian embassy, there was a process by which you gave them everything. And we've learned through the Spanish proceeding that everything there was copied. Every single person that went to see join Assange at the embassy, all of their information was imaged and we have reason to believe, based on the allegation of the complaint, that that was all done at the direction of the CIA, as well as comments made by Pompeo when he first was appointed the director of the CIA. So it's very outrageous conduct. And we believe that between, it's detailed in the complaint, there was a Las Vegas convention, there were communications, and all of which is a subject of the Spanish court proceeding. Thank you. Excellent. Margaret Kimberly. Sorry about that. Margaret Kimberly. Hi, good morning. Question, you mentioned Pompeo was CIA director and then Secretary of State. So these events began when he was CIA director. This is prior to his being Secretary of State? That is correct. That is correct. And in the complaint, we detail the fact that when Pompeo, the very first thing Pompeo did when he was actually appointed the director of the CIA was he had a press release. He had to get a press conference, in fact, where he denounced Julian Assange, and he went on about how he is essentially he says that essentially, and it's in paragraphs 22, 23, 24, 25 of the complaint, he pinned Julian Assange as being a non-state, hostile, intelligent service. Something I've never heard of before. Julian Assange, as mentioned earlier, was a publisher. To say that a publisher is a non-state, hostile, intelligent service sends a shock wave to the entire public, to every publisher in this country. And so that's essentially, yes, that is essentially alleged to the complaint, and that is, and those are the facts that we've learned. Thank you. Then Joe Laurier. Yes, hello. Joe Laurier, editor-in-chief of Consortium News, a question about discovery. Are you concerned, especially now that you've included the CIA as a defendant, that they will invoke, the government will invoke state secrets, privileged to prevent any discovery whatsoever? Listen, we don't think this will be an easy task. We know the previous administration has essentially tried to block every subpoena issued. In fact, my understanding is that Michael Pompeo is even not compliant with the Spanish subpoena. So discovery will be a difficult process. However, we will have a federal court judge who presumably will be non-biased, who will insist that certain documents, certain individuals be produced and be presented. So that's a process we're going to have. We're willing to take on. Now, Pompeo, you're suing as a private individual, correct? We're suing, yes. He was suing as a private individual because at the time he was actually director of the CIA and there's a law out there, there's precedent out there, which Bob can speak to, which allows you to sue the presiding, the person presiding over that agency. Just a quick follow up on whether this can affect the extradition proceedings at all. Obviously, even Vanessa Barraza at the lowest court heard about this. There was testimony from witnesses in the UC Global case in Madrid. So she and the High Court and the Supreme Court didn't even take the case and then ultimately Pretty Patel have all been aware of these things that the lawsuit, your lawsuit is alleging. That can inspire a lot of confidence that would actually impact the decision on the extradition, would it? Well, I mean, I don't necessarily agree that they wouldn't take it. That case is pending. We know that there's a lot of, there's a lot of competences. We know that there's a, if you will, a lot of it is sealed, but a good amount has come out. A lot of information has come out, which would lead us to the conclusions that are presented in the complaint. Now, what I meant was that the British courts and the Home Secretary have not have gone ahead with the extradition, even though they're all aware of what you're alleging pretty much that came out earlier. That's true. But as the first questioner asked, the British courts are not looking at it from a US constitutional eye. We are looking at it purely based on the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment does not let you do that. And that was never presented to the British courts or even to the Spanish courts. Now, thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, Mary Tostakidis. Thank you, Trevor. My question is to the attorneys, just with respect to how this case might impact on the UK and their ability to extradite him, I'm just wondering whether you have any idea how long this case will run and when you would expect a decision. And secondly, I'm sure that this isn't lost on anyone, the parallels with Dan Ellsberg. And I was wondering if you might go into that a little bit to talk about the direct parallels, but where this case might differ to Ellsberg's as well. So I can handle the first portion of that. I'm not sure, Margaret, if you can handle the second. But I would say to you that this process, obviously the US court system is not quick. Federal court is quicker than state. COVID did not help that. But this process, we're hoping to move it quickly. We're hoping that within a year at most, if not earlier, we're going to seek a judge immediately. And we'll get this, we want to get this, there's a lot riding on this lawsuit, as well as a lot riding on Julian Assange's current status. So I could speak to that as far as the comparing it to the Ellsberg lawsuit, Margaret. Is that something you can handle? Yes. I think that we all agree that this indictment is really an attempt to overrule that case. That case provided for the press be able to print documents that were under some kind of private government seal, whether it was top secret, not top secret, but any information that the government didn't want out came out and could come out. And that is still the law today. But it's obvious to us that the government is not happy with that law and would prefer to have that case overruled. Yes. No, I was, thank you for that. I was thinking specifically of the fair trial issue and the breach of confidence, the fact that they broke into down Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office. And here you've got Julian Assange's lawyer's material being sent to the CIA. So how do you feel, do you have a sense that the case is as, that part of the case is as strong and are there differences that we might know about? The issues here have not been raised by Julian Assange and cannot be raised by Julian Assange until he is here, until his trial begins, if he's extradited. We can only raise it in our context, as our rights were violated. There is no way for Julian to raise the violation of his rights at this time. And Bob, could you also weigh in on that? Well, there will be, you know, things are going to happen as we proceed. This civil case will proceed to discovery. Hopefully more information will come out, whether that information shows serious intrusions into the defense camp as we allege. And as we have strong reason to believe from the Spanish courts, it may very well have an effect on the criminal prosecution or the extradition proceeding. But right now we're in the stage of, this particular case is brought by the people who were aggrieved by the unreasonable searches and seizures that occurred when they simply visited this man in prison and attorneys who were doing their job. That's what this case is about. Mary, does that answer your question? It is a way though of drawing attention to one aspect of the way that US government misconduct started with this case with Julian. And there are many other examples of it. But we can't really raise that. In fact, we can raise it with the public and we try to convince the Justice Department that this is not a good case to continue with it. It's not good for them to continue the extradition proceeding because this is not a good case for them to try. Yes, sorry. Just one other thing. However, if and when you do get a decision, if it is in your favor, that decision could be used by Julian Assange's lawyers in the United Kingdom in that case, I presume. Can anyone comment on that? Certainly, I think that's a very fair presumption. One of the things we ask for is not only money damages, but we've asked the CIA to destroy and or return everything it has. So, yes, this could have very far-reaching consequences to the British proceeding. Thank you. Okay, Mohamed, you're next. But right before you go, I just want to restate if anyone does not have a copy of the press release, which includes a link to the actual suit, please email me trevorfg at protonmail.com, trevorfg at protonmail.com. Mohamed? Thank you, Trevor. You've actually answered one of my questions. So that saves a bit of time. So my name is Mohamed Amazi. I'm a UK based freelance journalist. I've been covering Julian's case since the outset, the extradition case that is. So you've already answered where we could get the suit. So I'll email you. But I do have a question in relation to Judge Beretser's decision in her judgment when she granted, well, she refused extradition on mental health grounds. But she dismissed all the other grounds, including the argument that there was spying by the CIA on privileged communications. And she raised a number of issues, including the fact that the Spanish case had yet to be completed. So it wasn't, you know, there wasn't a clear finding of fact from a court. But one of the issues she raised, she or the argument she raised, was that even if this did happen, this was done by the CIA. And surely there would be a firewall between the Department of Justice and the CIA and DOJ lawyers would know that they wouldn't be allowed to use anything that would come from the violation of privileged communication. So really, there's no there there in relation to this. So how would you, presumably that that might be an argument that could be raised in the U.S., how would you address that particular critique or argument that Judge Beretser raised? Well, I jumped in on that one. Should that happen, the government would have to prove that the information that it has is not tainted by the illegal searches and seizures. So the onus will be on the government. It's not simply a fact. Well, the government would stand up and say, we have this wall, nothing is going to be shared. They're going to have to prove that at that time. And clearly, if Mr. Assange is in this country, his attorneys will have the opportunity to challenge all of that. But right now, it's unclear at best as to whether any such wall would protect Mr. Assange's due process rights. So that's settled law then that under such a circumstance, there's an onus, what within the balance of probabilities or what for the state to have to prove that violations did not taint the defendant's rights. Yes, in most cases, that's true. Absolutely. And go ahead. Sorry. No, finish your thought. And then I would really like Debbie to weigh in on this as well. Oh, no, I was going to ask this a follow up question. So please go ahead, Deborah, if you had the Well, I just wanted to make the point that Vanessa Barris is a magistrate. Her rulings are by no means the final word on this. This question and many, many others on which she initially indicated that the extradition request was valid are the subject of an appeal now that's been filed by Julian Assange UK team and that will be expanded upon by the end of the month. So I would urge people to pay attention to what's going on there. There's a lot more to be heard on those arguments. That's great. We have a number of people who have questions. So we're going to have to move on, but if you have if you want to email me, I can connect you to appropriately appropriate attorneys. Canisca from Raiders. Hi guys, I hope I'm audible. So I just had one question, which was that is this lawsuit entirely focused on the alleged spying of Assange and the journalists and attorneys who met him? Or is this also centered on the alleged assassination plans that Yahoo News had reported last year? What's the score? Any of us can answer that the answer is it's the former not the latter. It is focused on the spying. The plaintiffs here remember are the people that are that are on this on this Zoom chat, all of whom have had rights violated. Okay, thank you. Okay, Cathy, who do we have next? We have Joe Lauria and William Goodman and Chip Gibbons. Okay, which which go to William Goodwin if that's okay. Yes, hello. Could you tell me could you elaborate a bit about the strength of the evidence showing that material went from the US Embassy through to the the CIA? I think as far as I understand, there are quite a number of dots that need to be joined in order to show that that took place. Could you talk me through that? So so I can start and Bob, you can chime in. If you look at the complaint, you start in the paragraphs in the 20s and go onward. You could see we describe how this entire process was thought up up of. We've taken information from the Spanish court system. We've taken information that Pompeo himself stated and certainly there's plenty of circumstantial evidence right now that would lead a reasonable try or a fact, which is a juror to conclude that the CIA possesses it. Certainly we are will be entitled through discovery to get more information. But the the nucleus of information we have thus far, which is predominantly the the allegations we've learned as well as the Spanish court proceeding, lead us to that conclusion. Okay, Matthew Russell. Yeah, sure. Thanks a lot. Matthew Russell, the inner city press, I've emailed you for the complaint itself, but I wanted to ask I guess I cover the southern district of New York courthouse. And I wanted to know whether you guys have asked for any emergency relief, because cases do go quite slow here, as I'm sure you know. And whether I also cover here the recent case of Joshua Schulte, who was accused of leaking vault seven to wiki leaks. And it was sealed. The case was the trial was sealed. He tried to get Pompey, we couldn't get him in as a witness. I'm wondering, I guess, if you could just speak more sort of about the legal strategy to actually have this impact, the, you know, impending or possible extradition in terms of the speed of the case. Thanks a lot. George, so we have not sought any expedited discovery yet. We want to have a judge assigned. It's we're an inch, we're an interesting yet odd world. On the one hand, there's COVID, which slows everything down. On the other hand, judges are setting up conferences, everything's done by zoom, so it's a much easier process. So once the judge is assigned, we will we will decide Bob and I and our team will decide whether or not we want expert or discovery. As far as Pompeo fighting it, we expect it, we expect him to fight that. We never thought this was an easy challenge, but we're bringing it on. I want to get a Chip Gibbons, but right before I do, I just want to also announce that I'm going to provide a link to the to the lawsuit that has been filed in this chat. I think that way everybody can immediately get it. If that's good. Excellent. So Chip. Oh yeah, this is Chip Gibbons. I'm covering today's press conference for Jacob and magazine. My question is for the attorneys. The US court system has raised over the last two decades now a number of barriers to bringing any sort of recovery for human rights or civil liberties abuses. Joe from good source of news mentioned to stay secret doctrine. But even before that point, I mean, after people who were rounded up after number 11 tried to sue John Ashcroft in Ashcroft v Iqbal, the Supreme Court just raised the pleading standard for civil litigation across the board. I know you can't comment on legal strategy, but how do you see yourself overcoming these barriers that have been raised in other cases where people had very serious plans of human rights abuses and surveillance? Bob, you want to take that? Sure. Well, there is a just a little bit of history. There's a case from 1970 or is it 1971, where the Supreme Court held that it's called Bivens versus six unknown agents of the FBI, that an individual can sue for his or her violation of their Fourth Amendment rights and can sue federal agents in their individual capacity. Now, has that right been chipped away by over the years by the Supreme Court and by other federal courts? Yes, it has, but there's still is that avenue to seek relief. And you know, we as lawyers, what the court does is what the court is going to do. And what we are fighting for is to vindicate those rights as they exist under the law or as they should exist under the law. And so the fact that lower federal courts and the Supreme Courts have chipped away at some of those rights is not a reason not to bring the lawsuit. In fact, you know, maybe we'll, you know, surprise everyone and make good law in this case. But you know, that's what that's what it's about. It's about fighting to vindicate the rights of individuals who have been agreed by government misconduct. We also have a question from Joe Laurier on jurisdiction. Why choose the Southern District of New York since the CIA is in Eastern Virginia? Are we trying to avoid the notorious Eastern District of Virginia? This is Richard Roth. No, we are not. We're not trying to avoid any jurisdiction. The bottom line is that if there is substantial conduct, either by the conducting of business or the transacting of business in New York state, then there's jurisdiction in New York. The CIA, there's jurisdiction in every state. So we actually looked at that closely and there's plenty of activity that occurred in New York state to which resulted in the bringing of the case in the Southern District. There was another question posted to the chat. Is the Department of Justice Trial Integrity Unit assessing this in another case they dropped charges on FMRIT expert to Clinton and Gore as a result of FBI wiretap into being allegedly shared with co-investigators at the SEC? So we don't know what the Department of Justice is doing, but honestly, they should be looking into this. There's no reason why, particularly lawyers, but anyone who's a citizen of the US should have be interfered with. The Fourth Amendment is one of our long and proud amendments to the US Constitution. So absolutely, they should be looking into this because quite frankly, this was done under color of law and it violated several people's rights. The plaintiffs here are not the only people that visited Julian Assange. There are, and I believe it's alleged in the complaint, hundreds of people that visited and we believe that each and every one of those people rights were violated. So this should be looked at by the Department of Justice. Also, William Goodwin asked if there's any evidence that is stronger than circumstantial evidence of the CIA receiving material from the Ecuadorian embassy? So we hit that, we hit on that one a little bit. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. We hit on that a little bit. There is strong circumstantial evidence that the CIA has this information. We believe there's sufficient evidence to put it to alleged in a complaint and we further believe that once we take the deposition and we get documents from UC, from UC Global, from different entities, we will be, we're going to find some very, very troubling facts which really are at the hands of the CIA and Mike Pompeo. The other part of it is that in the Spanish court, not only did Mike Pompeo refuse to testify, but the Spanish court asks the Justice Department if they would review certain addresses that came up during the context of the trial about where the material was transferred to and where it was requested and the U.S. refused to do that. And I would also add that in the Spanish proceedings, witnesses have testified as to conversations with Mr. Morales who's also a defendant in this case and a defendant in the Spanish proceedings where he admitted essentially that information was being not, not essentially. He admitted that he was recruited by American intelligence and provided the information to American intelligence under the rules of evidence and admission is not circumstantial evidence. It's direct evidence and it can be also admitted to show the guilt of other parties if you show that there was a conspiracy. So there is here and there some direct evidence. Do we hope to get more? Yes. And on the basis of what we do already have, we have a good faith effort. We can, we can make a good faith effort to get additional information that would prove the clients forever. You're muted. You're muted. I just wanted to let folks know that I have uploaded a link to the lawsuit that was filed this morning. And it is in the Zoom chat. So folks should be able to get a copy of it there. Todd McGreevy from River Cities Reader has a question. What was the shield in Adelson reference at the start of the news conference missed his alleged role in these allegations? Deb, you want to take that one? Or essentially the the allegation is that, and there's a lot of information to support this, that David Morales, who was the CEO of UC Global, went to a Las Vegas convention called the SHOT convention, the private security company convention in Las Vegas in January 2017 or thereabouts. And there he was bragging about the fact that they had the gig at the embassy to monitor Julian Assange and the Sheldon Adelson's security detail, we believe at that point, who were very connected with the Trump administration, a recruited David Morales, and he returned from that trip and bragged to his employees that they were essentially working for the dark side. He's a mercenary now. It's, you know, big time. There's a lot of quotes about this. And this is all from this all came out in the course of the criminal investigation against UC Global that's going on in Spain right now that is being supervised by a high court judge there. And that is the judge that has seen enough evidence to ask the Mike Pompeo to testify to flesh out what's really what the CIA links are, that the IP address queries and other request for information and interrogatories that have been sent to the US government and have been totally ignored. No, they're not denying it. They're just ignoring it. They're not cooperating with a judge in Spain who's trying to investigate exactly this issue. So that's where it comes from. And I see that Kelly Lane and Sean Waterman have their hands up. Kelly, could you start please? Yes, just one moment. Let me get my camera on. So my question is about the court district. Is this this is the southern district of New York? Is that's the same where Donziker's case was heard? I just I guess I wanted to know if anyone had any more information about what the possible who the possible judges are because you know, we say someone said it presumed, you know, fairness in the court. But I just wanted to know if anyone could elaborate on that a little bit. Abab, you want to take that one? Well, I mean, there are dozens of district judges in, you know, in the southern district. We don't know yet which judge has been assigned to this case. I we made, I would think here about that today, but there are dozens of district court judges. And when you file a lawsuit, it's assigned to a particular judge on a random basis. But we don't have the name of that judge yet. Okay, thank you. Sean Waterman. Oh, sorry. I'm sorry, Kelly. Did you have more? No, I was just saying thank you. I just, you know, that case was very concerning the way things were ruled there. But, you know, so thank you. Sean? Yeah, I'd like to ask the defendants. I mean, forgive me for not turning my camera on the apartment's a bit of a mess today. I'd like to ask the plaintiffs, rather, if they would characterize the danger that this alleged behavior by the CIA represents and sort of how they personally feel about, you know, what if it's true is a fairly egregious violation of their privacy. Thank you. I just wanted to say one thing. And that is, is that when our electronic devices or my electronic devices were copied or whatever, that that it's not just my dealings with Assange, right? As a journalist, I'm involved in an investigative team, as I said before, with the Suddeutsche at the time and NDR. And there's a whole lot of stories that, that there's a lot of information about those stories in our devices and in my device. And so that's another reason why I think it's important. I, Muhammad has a has a quick follow up question, if we can go to this. He asks, if we actually have standing to ask or demand that the expedition request be dropped, given that the lawsuit is being brought only on behalf of U.S. persons who are not acting on Julian's behalf. So we're not asking just so we're clear, we are not asking if the extradition proceeding be dropped. But some of the comments made here, particularly by the plaintiffs, are that how fair can that be? If in fact, they're taking our information, this, the result of this litigation is not to drop it. But there's, but it has tremendous, there's a ripple effect. And the ripple effect is how fair is it for the U.S. government or for the BRICS to continue to go after Julian Assange, when in fact they're engaging in this conduct? Deb, I think you want to add to that? Yes, I do. In the actual court case, part of the relief that we're requesting does not include dropping the charges, dropping the extradition. But as an American citizen, as an attorney, as a human being, I am many of my colleagues, including the plaintiffs, are absolutely calling on the DOJ to drop the charges, to not counter the appeal that's being lodged based on an extradition charge that is commenced by the Trump administration. Obama never, ever, never did this. This was something that the Trump administration did, and the, for whatever reason, the Biden administration, the Merrick Garlander, permitting this to continue, even though it's anathema to democratic values of press freedom. This is a much broader issue than the court case. The court case is about our constitutional rights, but we are categorically calling for the extradition case to be dropped. And there's a certain irony here in that this morning, this very morning, Rand Paul, Senator Rand Paul actually is asking for the repeal of the Espionage Act, the very act which they're going after Julian for. So hopefully that consensus will get stronger. And yes, that's not the goal of this lawsuit, but that we can't deny that that is a goal. Okay, we are, I think we have time for maybe one or two more. Kathy, I don't know if there was a time limit on this, but so I'm not sure when it's going to... No time limit. Oh, no time limit. That's just fantastic. Let's be here all day. I think a few individuals have left their hands up. So to make sure we see who really has another question. I think Joe Lauria has a follow-up. I know that. Margaret does too. Perfect. Joe, are you there? Little tech issue, perhaps. How about Margaret? Thank you. Are you anticipating Margaret Kimberly from Black Agenda Report? Are you anticipating what Pompeo's defense will be? Is there some sort of executive privilege he can claim? What do you think his defense will be? Bob, you want to handle that? Either of us can do it. I mean, we assume he'll raise a whole host of defenses. I wouldn't want to speculate as to what he would raise at this point. We're going out on a limb to say that, as Richard said earlier, that there's going to be issues of executive privilege and secrets and so forth that are raised at a minimum in the course of discovery and maybe as substantive defenses to the case. So we'll see. Once we've served the complaint, the bullet is now in their court to issue a responsive pleading and we'll see what that says. If there are no more questions, Nathan and Deb, I know that you talked about some resources for any journalists who might want some more information. Nathan, I don't know if you want to give out a few websites or, and Deb, you too, if there are a few websites that you encourage people to go to. Absolutely. Yes. I just posted the filing and the copy of this press conference actually on to assangedefense.org. So that's the place to go for courtroom reports. You can see a guide to the extradition hearing and recounting the testimony as well as upcoming events and how to get involved or to learn more. So that's assangedefense.org. Deb, do you have any other? Yes. I am posting links to two really important publications. One is, I just got one, Niels Meltzer, who was the UN Special Aperture on torture, has recently published a fantastic book, really delving into the character assassination of Julian Assange and how the government has manipulated the way in which people see Assange and how effective that's been as a tool to undermine the very legitimate arguments that we have. And then a little bit older but still extremely important is the, or books, anthology of essays about the trial of Julian Assange in the public, really, in the public sphere. And it's got essays by renowned academics and philosophers and journalists all over the world who are supportive of the case and are really driving home why this case is so important for press freedom. And it really criminalizes investigative journalism. And all the journalists here should be extremely concerned about this case reaching our shores, especially with the Supreme Court we've got right now. We can't let this happen. I would encourage everybody who can to download Pompeil's speech that he gave when he first became head of the CIA, where he stated specifically that he was going to go after Assange and he was going to go after people who are working with Assange. So that's another admission against interest. You're muted, Trevor. It'd be great if you had somebody who knew what they were doing. Sorry about that. For any journalist who has any further questions or would like to speak to any of the participants, I have put my email and cell phone in the message to everyone in the chat. So feel free to email or call if you'd like to follow up with anybody else. And thank you all for your very thoughtful questions. Thank you, Heidi and Trevor. Take care, everyone. Have a great day. Bye. Take care. Thank you. Bye. Thank you all. If you are a consumer of independent news, then the first place you should be going to is Consolidating News. And please do try to support them when you can. It doesn't have its articles behind a paywall. It's free for everyone. It's one of the best news sites out there and it's been in the business of independent journalism and adversarial independent journalism for over two decades. I hope that with the public's continuing support of Consolidating News, it will continue for a very long time to come. Thank you so much.