 Hi everybody, thanks for being here today. I want to talk a little bit about words and lawyers. English is not my first language so I'm fascinated about the use of language and words and how it is abused and used in the battle against justice. 13 years ago when I started working with Julian preparing the release of the collateral murder video, I'm sure that all of you have seen, it struck me that they used the word engagement in a certain context. For me, engagement was something that had a pleasant connotation. This was the word that used when people got together and decided to tie the knot, as I think you call it, until death took them apart. But in the vocabulary of the American military, engagement, yes it does have to do with death, but it means fatal killing. That is the engagement that the lawyers in Pentagon came up with when they drew up the rules, the rules of engagement. And those were the rules the lawyers drew up and the helicopter pilots were thinking about when they asked for permission to engage, to open fire, to assassinate Matassa Tomal, an innocent civilian who came upon the sea to save the life of an injured man, Saeed Sma, a word for Reuters. Permission to engage, they asked. Give us permission to engage before they opened fire and straight 30mm hollow bullets upon the vehicle were inside for the two children, Saeed and Sma, who were only saved because their father threw his body over them and shielded them in front of the car. Think about these lawyers who are sitting, and they will pop these documents, finding new meanings to these words. Engagement, it's killing. And think about the fact that Julian is being indicted for publishing these rules of engagement. You are not even allowed or supposed to see the rules they play by in their assassination games in war. They do not charge him for publishing the collateramity video for one purpose only because they do not dare to have that shown in a courtroom at any point. And you know why. How they use language. We all know how the lawyers in Pentagon and the Department of Justice drew up manuals and military good torture prisoners. But of course they didn't call it torture. What shall we call it? So it sounds better. Enhanced interrogation techniques. That's water boarding 80 times, 90 times. Electrocution, hanging up on the hand until you are disjointed on the arms. Torture, pure, no enhanced interrogation techniques. Bravo, thank you. I want to draw up a little scene that we came to learn about in January this year when Mike Pompeo, former CIA director, later Secretary of State was director of CIA in 2017 and he was very hopeful that he could become the Republican nominee for election next year. So of course he published a book, his memoir, his fond memoir from the Halls of Power when he was director of CIA and later Secretary of State. Now think about this. He tells a story that just before Christmas 2017 he sat in a cozy atmosphere with his family. Think about this atmosphere. The wife is preparing the dinner, I guess. The decoration, the Christmas tea is up. The gifts on the floor. And he tells that he was sitting, browsing through and reading the manual on extra-judicial killings. Shame! That's the Christmas that Pompeo wanted and liked most. And why is this relevant? Yes, because we now know that in the same period because of brave journalists who did deep investigation there were plans being drawn up to assassinate Julian Assange. Shame! Or assassinate him in the Ecuadorian embassy. A real plan that was introduced in the White House. And we furthermore know this because two brave witnesses were protected. A vicious statement that they knew about this plan and poisoning was being discussed. That was what Pompeo was conducting just before Christmas 2017 when he had the CIA. Possibly not going to hear about all this in the court of law, in the attribution hearing and the high court. Why? Because on 6th of January Justice Swift, as he is named, his name is Justice Swift, decided after almost nine months of deliberation to spit out three and a half pages of his ruling that he's on no reason for Julian Assange to have an appeal in high court. No ruling at all. He complained about the mass of paperwork and documents that he was pestered to go through. 200 pages, too long. It's about a man's life. That's the defense documents. It should have been less. I see nothing there. The story about the plan to kidnap and kill Julian Assange. No, it's just a journalistic story. It's based on 30 named and unnamed sources published in Yahoo News written by three prominent investigative journalists. Now, it's just some speculation by our journalists. The protective witnesses who knew that there was a plan to poison Julian Assange. Now, not worthy of being heard in the high court in London, said Justice Swift. And on and on he went in the three and a half pages. He didn't bother that document. You should read it. It clarifies for us that the entire judicial process in this country is a facade. And it's a justice persecution to make it look like it's justice. But it's not. And the more steps we take in the courts here in London, the more years it begins. And Justice Swift, he doesn't even spend much effort in trying to clothe the real fact of the matter that he had already decided to take a politicized opinion before he even put the 200 documents. And I doubt that he read through the entire thing. He was probably reading the memoirs by the great Mike Pompeo at the time. Greg Murray wrote an excellent piece the other day. Please read him and support him. And he reminded people how fascism and Nazism crept into the German psyche in the 30s. And there was no shortedness of lawyers and scholars, legal scholars to write up the justification for the wrongdoing. And at the Nuremberg trial, there was no shortedness of documents, probably more than 200, as a defense document. Listen, it's all in the laws. It has been passed on laws and these legal scummers that said I was in the right. And we brought the orders to do it. It's called the Nuremberg defense. It was dismissed at the Nuremberg trial. When it comes to these heinous acts, you have to be accountable no matter what the lawyers have drawn up. No matter what the process is. And that is what we are going to be having in mind. We are going to hold these people accountable. Every individual, we will get history. If not history to justice people. And they will be spackled. The sons and daughters and granddaughters and grandsons, they will be ashamed of the legacy of those individuals in the court, in the entire bloody corrupt system who took part in this persecution. We're most running out of time. We need to save a man's life. We need to take journalism. We need to act now and we cannot stay silent. We need to scream out from the top of our voice. Stop it. No extradition. Three minutes to midnight in this case. There is a crucial and possibly final court case on the horizon. When the announcement comes of the date of that case, please be ready. My name is Kristen Raffensen. We have heard a lot about radical transparency today in one speech. About Americans being brainwashed into thinking Julian had just dumped information. Now, those of us who were in the courtroom, we heard of the ingenious way that Julian had invented using a dictionary, for example, finding words that weren't in the dictionary. They were proper names. Can you tell us something about redaction, because it seems to me that this is so important? Well, I mean, it's shocking that these evidence that you were mentioning, which is so much closer against this propaganda narrative which is being held up, we are not allowed possibly to present it to a high court because it's a huge, of course, argument and favour of Julian. I can tell you, and I testify to that, that after 20 years in the mainstream media, often handling legal material and sensitive issues, I have never experienced as solid diligence in handling material and sensitivity in handling the material as in the case of Julian when we were working on the 2010-2011 publications. Great links that Julian and the team went to in order to safeguard every sensitivity. We went further, actually, in some instances in that process that the mainstream media that we were cooperating with, we redacted more than the New York Times. People, there was absolutely no dumping of material, careful, journalistic, sensible curation of the material before it was presented to the public, both when it came to the Afghan warlock, the Iraq warlock and the diplomatic capules especially. So this propaganda voice that's been hammered on for 13 years now and echoed in the mainstream media is totally without any foundation and it's so easy to do something. People would listen to present them with the evidence of it and it's in the core documents that Julian is now trying to present in his appeal but possibly will not be heard. Well in the case of the State Department capules didn't Julian also contact the United States government and request their help for redactions and what happened? There were more than one approaches and attempts to involve the State Department offer to create an alliance at the outset and in the summer of 2011 when of course through the betrayal of two Guardian journalists and other former insiders and wickilings the material was exposed. Then of course steps were taken to warn the State Department and offered to assist in reacting to their possible scenario. That was not answered. And bear in mind when it came to the diplomatic capules as has been testified to in the court in London the primary publisher of the material in the end of the full unreducted material was not wickilings. It was an American entity. Crypto. And even Mr Young, the founder of Crypto has offered to me because he knows that he can take on a fight on the first amendment basis. The protection that is now being fiddled with in the public discourse that Julian will be denied. So that message is a blow to the journalism core in Australia and all around the world should be enough to wait a minute. So you've got to have a separate rule for American journalists called the first amendment production but anybody else who reports on their issues exposes their corruption, their war crimes is fully exposed. That should set shockwaves and I don't think people realise what kind of a horrible scenario could emerge from that. Well it's exactly as Stella said in her talk last night it's a war between accountability and impunity. What you're talking about somewhat ensures impunity. Yeah, of course we have so many stories reflecting that. You just imagine now we have only the torture programme of the CIA exposes who has been held accountable for that not a single person, only person who went to jail because it's the whistleblower who exposed it. John Kiriak, that is the twisted world we now live in and exemplifies what we are dealing with and what people need to realise that we need to change the scale and actually fight for, against this impunity for his heinous act. So can I ask you just a practical question so we were awaiting for Julian to appear in front of those two judges. Do we have any idea of how soon that could happen and after that they judged negatively how soon it would be before he could possibly be extradited. Well, this is the issue, we have no idea and this is part of the psychological warfare and torture against Julian to have this constant uncertainty on all steps of the case that have been no indication of when that could happen. It could be a moral that they announce that in a week's time there's going to be an accord that they can wait and wait and wait but it could be before, the entire thing could be over in the British courts before summer recess on July 31st, before the end of the next month but we simply don't know and there's anybody's case and you cannot rely on any president in the court histories here because all these presidents are null and void when it comes to Julian. There is a Julian's exemption on the way the judiciary has been handling his case from day one. Day one. Exposed the fact, it's nothing to do with the law it's persecution, as I said in my talk here cloaked in this judicial fake curtain, it's a portempting curtains of a legal process that we are witnessing here and that has been exposed in the process in the courts here. Well, in the appeal the case of Laurie Love was brought up and Justice Burnett drew a distinction between Julian and Love because Love was suffering from a physical condition as well. Shouldn't that medical assessment because the assurances were only given on the basis of a mental health condition now since Julian, that was the very day Julian had his stroke, by the way. Shouldn't that be the medical grounds be reviewed and view that the fact there is no doctor even in ADC, there's no doctor permanently on staff and it would be a very complicated procedure. Well, of course, I am absolutely certain that the lawyers are looking into that but you have to pass the hurdles to actually be heard in the court. That is the problem. What kind of justice is that you don't have a possibility to raise these arguments? But there's one more appearance. Can't it be stated that that distinction that Burnett made no longer applies? Well, as much as you can squeeze in the half hour that they have all allocated for the total process. Yes, so that means the bench gets 15 minutes. Is that right? That is what we are... Of course, the need to extend them. Are you going to... I assume they're going to have 15 minutes to argue for his life? Is that the justice we're going to see here? I would not be surprised but of course, they would be at a man to extend that. I want to ask you about the end game here that we seem to be in. I know it's a political case but a popular support thing that's really crucial but there is a legal process. At least in name, it's a legal process. What role could the European Court of Human Rights play and how would that work out? Because I'm hearing that they would have to get either a judge here or the Department of Administrative Justice to issue the injunction because it doesn't come directly from the government. That would give them time to lose the papers. Is that what you're afraid of? Well, for one thing when I read the Justice Swift's document with his daughter, it doesn't take you long and you can read between the lines what kind of how totally dismissive it is. He doesn't even try to hide the fact that he... I mean, he came to that conclusion before he heard any argument before he read a single document. I'm absolutely certain of that. It sort of reeks of that. And still took 11 months? Well, nine months. It's in September. And his name is ironically Justice Swift. But that's part of the psychological torture against Julia and the stalling process on every step of the way. Now, we, of course, have now this possibility with Justice Swift that's actually narrowed to present the case for two judges in a renewed application for appeal with astonishingly a swift can narrow the scope of the documents that are presented to 20 pages. It literally only gives half an hour to present the case, at least from the outset when I read it, it sounds like that's for both parties. So I think, are they going to give him 15 minutes to actually fight for his license? It's absurd. So I'm not too hopeful for that outcome. But, of course, the lawyers for Julian are ready to immediately petition to the Strasbourg Court to take his case on and issue a request to stay the extradition based on so-called Rule 39. That could be within hours. And until now, the British government has abided by the rule. But there's a lot of controversy and the conservatives here in this House are furious that the Strasbourg Court was interfering in the deportation of refugees to Rwanda. So there's a huge opposition to that. And I fear that they will either not wait for the signal from Strasbourg request to stay if it comes. Because it only takes an hour to drive to the airport from Belmarts prison. Or they will ignore the Strasbourg Court and find some legal justification that saying it's not an order, it's just a request. So we're in the right to do so. And by the way, this is interference with our sovereignty and all that BS that is being presented constantly and was the basis of the Brexit and for the basis of them totally shattering international institutions, the other nations and mechanisms that have saved lives that have been destroyed in the Julian's process. The working group of arbitrary attention which was ignored, the special repertoire and torture that was totally ignored. Can you imagine? They've undermined the international system, this fragile system with our human rights globally is based on. This is the intensity of the fight that we are fighting. It's on all fronts and nothing is spared. So I do fear that the European Court of Human Rights will not get a chance to intervene or will be ignored and dismissed if they do. Even though it's legally binding. And they haven't, there's legislation I think to get out of that. I spoke about the laws and the legal scholars. I've seen an Oxford scholar in this country write and you can just imagine what kind of a party affiliation he has. His legal scholarly opinion that you can actually ignore Rule 39 but still be a part of the treaty. What I'm really afraid of is that even if the European Court of Human Rights decides to intervene and issues are requested in order to stay their tradition it will be ignored here. And they will find some legal justification to say that yes, we will abide by the treaty in generally for a while at least because there's so much in the balance there. I mean the good Friday agreement, peace in Northern Ireland. It's basically hanging on that human rights treaty. So that's the only reason why they haven't dismissed it entirely so far. But they will find some legal scholar and I've actually seen papers explaining that yes you can decide not to abide by Rule 39 but still be a part of the treaty. So this is what I call what I'm afraid of. This is how fascism creeps up on you with good help of lawyers. There's always enough lawyers who are willing and able to create this fancy paperwork or take part in court proceedings creating the justification and the facade of legality. And I mean I'm afraid to come to that. To happen or stopping that to happen of course we need a universal outcry on outrage. Especially among the European leaders who have cowardly and shamefully stayed silent when not even supporting the Prime Minister of Australia and the opposition leaders how is it that we have to go to Latin American presidents to get full support from country after country after country to issue statement and takes the issue up with the Biden himself personally half a billion people in these countries that I visited in the last few months in Latin America were totally on board and understand the gravity because in their living memory they know what they're dealing with. You don't have to convince anybody in kidnapping killing plans of the CIA. I mean involvement of the Department of Justice in court proceedings like they did against Lula now it is well established that the Brazilian president was unjust was basically thrown in jail on cooktop charges and the Department of Justice the US did have a hand in that process in the Petrobras etc etc so they understand and I am so frustrated that we are not getting these voices on the top political level in Europe because that's where the leverage could be and I thought we would be already there with bipartisan support in Australia with that strong statements made by Albanese and it was almost shattering when he came over the coronation week into London and said very diplomatically I am frustrated well we all know in diplomat speak what that means that is a strong word so other world leaders that actually do care about president need to support him as well so what are we dealing with we're trying to save an individual man's life and the government is even ready to sacrifice or upset relations with their most important important partner in the Pacific which is now a member of this little cosy NATO expansion over to the Pacific in the Orcus alliance that is remarkable but that should be a way called to people this is where we are it is truly an yes as an individual but it is about underlying principles that are at stake this is the line of the sand so many things