Assange: US has no jurisdiction

View this post on Hive: Assange: US has no jurisdiction

---

In mid-February 2020 Justin Sun acquired the shares in Steemit Inc and proceeded centralise the blockchain under his control, improperly using Steemit's founders stake (intended for development and decentralisation of the blockchain) and tricking exchanges into initially supporting his power grab.

After extensive efforts to resolve the dispute failed, the community revolted and formed a new, fully decentralised blockchain - Hive - without the pernicious influence of Justin Sun and his minions.
Because of Open Source licensing, Hive was legally able to duplicate all the code and content on Steem.
The vast majority of the community and decentralised applications and projects moved to Hive and Hive was listed on many cryptocurrency exchanges without having to pay the normal listing fees.

On 19 May 2020, a Steem hard fork (0.23) designed to steal the Steem from 65 accounts associated with creating Hive became public.
My position on this hard fork can be found here: https://peakd.com/hf23/@brianoflondon/letter-to-exchanges-do-not-run-steem-hard-fork-23-hf-0-23-0

This was the final straw for my involvement with Steem.

I will now post exclusively on Hive at https://peakd.com/@apshamilton/posts
All my old Steem content can also be found on Hive.

---

In all the controversy and coverage over the arrest of Julian Assange, something quite important has been missed.

The US indictment against Assange fails to address the crucial question of jurisdiction - why do US laws apply to Assange at all?

Julian Assange is an Australian citizen who was (as far as I am aware) not in the US in May 2010 at the time of the actions cited in the indictment.
The indictment talks about electronic communications between Manning and an online user that is alleged to be Assange (another weak argument).
It provides no basis for US jurisdiction at all.
This means that under general legal principles of jurisdiction, US laws don't apply to him and the US indictment is invalid.

Unlike Manning, who was both a US citizen and who had sworn an oath and signed official documents making secrecy commitments to the US government, Assange has no personal or jurisdictional connection to the US at all.

Now while the US law in question may be expressed to have extra-territorial effect, such provisions must be rejected by foreign courts in extradition cases.
Otherwise you create a complete legal mess where many countries create extra-territorial laws and it become impossible to comply with all of the different countries laws.

If the UK Courts don't reject this extradition request then they are establishing a very dangerous and problematic precedent.
It is hard enough for people to comply with the laws of the country where they are located.
It is impossible for anyone to comply with conflicting laws from multiple countries claiming extra-territorial jurisdiction.
Just imagine if Turkey could extradite people from the UK for criticising Erdogan; China could extradite from Australia for being part of Falun Gong.

Every country is entitled to its own laws, and there is huge variation and conflict, but people shouldn't have to comply with laws of countries they have nothing to do with.

As far as I am aware, Assange has not broken Australian law and the only legal claim against him in the UK is breach of Court orders regarding Swedish claims that have now been dropped or time barred.

There are fundamental questions of national sovereignty and rule of law at stake here.
The UK Courts must reject the extradition request.

Assange must be released after a small penalty for breaching now irrelevant UK Court orders.

Signup for the Crypto Class Action against Facebook & Google's Crypto Ad Ban