 Hi, I'm Dan Olsby. One of the foundation stones of our former government here in the United States, a democracy in our republic, is our First Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids any law by Congress or the states abridging freedom of speech or of the press, along with freedom of religion and of assembly. That has precluded the passage of a British-type official secrets act, which most countries have. Almost no other country has a law singling out the press as protected by our freedom by the First Amendment. And the British-type official secrets act, which criminalizes any or all disclosure of information protected by the government, by the executive branch, even disclosure to the public or to the press or to Congress or Parliament, is criminalized and subject to prison. We've never had such an act because of our First Amendment. In fact, one was almost inadvertently passed by Congress in the year 2000, but it was vetoed by President Clinton as a clear-cut violation of the First Amendment. He cited in his opinion, accompanying that some of the opinions in the Pentagon Papers case of half a century ago. That had resulted from my disclosure of information that I had authorized possession of as a contractor to the government at that time, 7,000 pages of top secret documents about the history of US decision making in Vietnam, which disclosed a repeated sequence by four different presidents of lies and, in effect, violations of the Constitution, treaties, and, in particular, misleading Congress as the costs for war. I was facing 115 years in prison, but not for an official secrets act, which we don't have. It was an experiment by President Nixon to use our Espionage Act, which had always been directed and intended for use against spies giving information secretly to a foreign government, especially in time of war, had never been used, as it was by Nixon in my case, and substitute for an official secrets act for disclosure to the public, with no irrigation of my intentions there, but simply that holding doing that was a violation. That was dismissed on grounds of government criminality against me. And there never has been a Supreme Court decision on whether the use of the Espionage Act as is now facing Julian Assange as a basis for an attempt to extradite him from Britain to the US was constitutional. They've never received it, even though there have been dozens of cases since then, since my case, in which the act was used as if it were an official secrets act. In effect, making it a reliable substitute and withholding from the public any information the government doesn't want it to have, which is an enormous amount of information. Up until Julian Assange's indictment, the act, however, had never been used as an official secrets act is against other than sources, like myself, who had a possession of information, who disclosed it to the public that had never been used against a journalist like Julian Assange, although in each case, of course, of such disclosures or leaks in some form of media was involved, many, many people involved in that. But they had never been indigent for that before. Actually, if you're going to use the act against journalists in blatant violation of the First Amendment's denial of Congress's ability to criminalize acts by journalists, by the press, the First Amendment is essentially gone. As I say, we're almost the first to have it. We fought a war of independence and established a constitution, so we have a First Amendment. Britain does not know where Julian now is, and they have an official secrets act, which we don't. If we acquire that, we give up the main result, I would say, of that war of independence in the sense that we are no longer really a republic or a Democrat. We have monarchical powers, imperial powers, formally, and every empire requires secrecy to cloak its acts of violence that maintain as an empire to the American. It's a major form in our change and our form of government. The fact is that the Espionage Act is even broader than the British Official Secrets Act, and that's why Congress, any people in Congress who wanted to uphold secrecy have given up trying to pass a formal Official Secrets Act. They prefer the Espionage Act because the wording of that act so far, not used even against a journalist until during this time, and not used beyond a journalist to someone who simply receives the information or possesses it, maintains it, without giving it to an authorized authority. That is covered by the language of the Espionage Act. To challenge that, a year ago, I released a top secret document on the Taiwan Streets Crisis of 1958, that long ago, in which the US came close to using nuclear weapons to uphold the protection of Taiwan from mainland China, and if you wish, is now very much facing us this year. And I challenge that as someone who had held that and refused to give it to authorized authority for all these years in order to raise in court for the first time, whether one can take the plain language of the Espionage Act as controlling, as overruling basically the First Amendment. To go further this year in connection with the attempt to extradite Julian Assange, I also reveal the fact that I had been as subject to indictment as Julian all this time, since 2010, because I had possessed the information which he released to the newspapers before he did that. He conveyed it to me before he did that as a backup to what he was doing for the press. In the plain language of the act then, as someone who possessed that information and did not disclose it to a authorized person and retained it, I like actually every reader of the Times, the New York Times, the Guardian, El Pais, Le Monde who received and published that information, every reader all over the world comes under the plain language of that act. I'm in effect saying with Julian, I am prepared to face a test of that act going up to the Supreme Court if necessary and restoring our status as a Republic. I call on President Biden either to indict me along with Julian Assange and others or to drop this unconstitutional attempt to extradite Julian. I wouldn't have to be extradited or to prosecute either of us in these courts. That is really the only way for him to restore our status as a Republic and a democracy.