 Thanks Joe. Before I start I'd just like to pull out a quote from Juan's film. It's Julian Assange back in 2011. He says there is a very worrying attempt in the United States to erect a new precedent in the national security sector that any journalist who corresponds with the source is committing espionage if at some time a classified communication is made. If I am a conspirator to commit espionage then all these other media organizations and the principal journalists in them are also conspirators to commit espionage. So is Julian Assange a hacker? Well the argument has been he's not a journalist but a hacker and the first part is an obviously ludicrous statement as Joe Laurier has explained. Let's look at the findings of a forensic examiner who was called on day 14 of Assange's extradition hearing to give testimony in relation to the conspiracy to commit computer intrusion charge. That charge is regarded by some as the least of Assange's worries since it only carries a five-year maximum prison sentence. I would argue it's the most important keystone charge because it shifts legal and public perception. It's the hook that enables all the other charges. Well according to Vice President Joe Biden back in 2010 who when asked if Julian Assange was criminal a somewhat gnarly question within the context of the First Amendment he began with if he conspired and the information wasn't just dropped on his lap. Proving Assange conspired with Manning to obtain defense information would set him apart and open the door to charging him with espionage. This is the charge that drives a wedge between Assange and any other journalist and perhaps inspires fear in those who on a regular basis correspond with their national security sources. The late Michael Ratner alerted us to a grand jury investigation in 2011 along these lines. Joe Laurier and I have been reporting from the Assange courtroom since February 2020. I wrote about Ella's testimony and its significance in the consortium news article why the crumbling computer conspiracy case is so vital to the US. The expert witness Patrick Ella worked for the US Army for 13 years. He was a command digital forensic examiner and computer chromes instructor with oversight of more than 80 digital forensic examiners. He was tasked by the defense with analyzing private chat logs allegedly between Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange that had been submitted by the US as evidence of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion by Assange. The US claimed, quote, cracking the password would have allowed Manning to log onto the computers under a username that did not belong to her. Such a measure would have made it more difficult for investigators to identify Manning as the source of disclosures of classified information. Ella found that the narrative alleged in the US indictment as conspiracy between Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning didn't make sense. Ella said the US couldn't prove nor was he asked to prove that the moniker Manning was conversing with was Assange. Manning already had security clearance to access the files as the indictment itself points out and she had already given WikiLeaks most of her material before this alleged hack. Manning's top secret access was only permitted on her login for which she had the password. Logging in as another username meant she would have been locked out. Nor would logging in as another user have given Manning anonymity as the government alleges since the physical IP address of the terminal was recorded regardless of who was logged in. From the Manning court martial it emerged that the government knew who was on shift at the time. In the Lidavella's testimony the US scenario of Assange's conspiracy with Manning was shown to be unfeasible. The hacking charge fell apart so the US went looking for something else in an attempt to show Assange encouraged and worked with hackers. They presented a second superseding indictment that was accepted by the British court 14 months after the original bad line. The charge crumbled again when testimony from a new witness FBI informant Ziggador Thordeson that Assange had directed people to hack was recanted. One senses a desperate move because Thordeson was a convicted fraudster and pedophile and a repeat offender and we hear of the FBI being kicked out of Iceland by its minister of the interior where they had gone to scrape the bottom of the barrel. Ziggie gave his chat logs with the FBI to Stundan, a prominent Icelandic news outlet, supporting documents suggest they were authentic. Stundan journalist Bjartmar Alexandersson followed up with many hours of somewhat surreal interviews with Ziggie who didn't appear capable of saying the same thing twice. I think we can reasonably say that Julian Assange is a journalist and as long as he continues to be shown innocent in court he is not a hacker. That's the way justice works. A new appeal has been submitted. Let's keep our eye on the point the US government has misrepresented the core facts of the case to the British courts. Thank you.