WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a ruling on Tuesday afternoon in London, Senior District Judge, Chief Magistrate, Emma Arbuthnot denied the request by Assange’s attorneys to withdraw an arrest warrant issued in 2012, when Assange skipped bail, refusing to surrender for extradition to Sweden on a sex charge that Sweden has now dropped.
This decision leaves Assange in limbo, confined in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, for fear of being arrested by law enforcement authorities in London seeking to enforce the Chief Magistrate’s ruling.
Arbuthnot’s ruling did not take into consideration the decision of the Ecuadorian government earlier this month to grant Assange not only a passport as a naturalized Ecuadorian citizen, but a diplomatic passport, with Ecuador requesting other governments in the world to extend to Assange travel immunity privileges under international law, considering Assange as a member of Ecuador’s diplomatic team.
The adverse decision today in London raises new security concerns for Assange, given the expressed desire of the Ecuadorian government to find an international solution that would allow Assange to leave London without fear of incarceration.
Given his extended exile in the Ecuadorian Embassy since 2012, Assange has begun soliciting contributions in crypto-currencies – a clear indication that as his need for funds has intensified, those willing to contribute are needed to come forward now more than ever before.
The adverse ruling today in London puts increased pressure on President Trump to take steps to work with Great Britain and Ecuador to find a solution that would allow Assange to leave London unimpeded.
Was Assange already extracted from London?
Infowars.com has previously published indications from QAnon that Assange was extracted secretly from London on Jan. 5-6, and that he is now in hiding in Switzerland.
QAnon appears to be an intelligence operative with apparent ties to President Trump who has been posting on the Internet bulletin board known as “8chan,” interpreted by anonymous groups such as @CBTS_stream with postings on the reddit.com “Calm Before the Storm” board known as “CBTS_Stream.”
Infowars.com previously reported that at a press conference held Thursday, Jan. 11, in Quito, Ecuador, the Ecuadorian Ministry of Foreign Affairs affirmed both that Ecuador naturalized Julian Assange in granting him citizenship, and that Ecuador had extended to Assange diplomatic status as well.
With diplomatic status, Ecuador was attempting to position Assange an international passport that would give him the right to leave Ecuadorian Embassy in London so as to exit the United Kingdom with diplomatic travel immunity privileges.
During the course of the press conference in Quito, the Ecuadorian Ministry of Foreign Affairs further revealed that Assange was naturalized an Ecuadorian citizen on December 12, 2017, some one month before the official announcement was made yesterday.
This delay in the public announcement would have allowed Assange nearly a month to leave London secretly, perhaps traveling by train across the English Channel, using his Ecuadorian diplomatic passport to facilitate crossing borders.
Passport security procedures within the E.U. would have made train travel across borders a less rigorous control process that passport security procedures that regulate travel by air.
Trump’s attorneys argue Assange’s First Amendment right to publish
In a motion filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Dec. 29, 2017, in the case Roy Cockrum vs. Donald J. Trump for President, attorneys for President Trump argued that Julian Assange had a right under the First Amendment to publish the DNC and John Podesta emails, even if the emails were stolen.
The case was orchestrated by Project Democracy, a group run by former attorneys from the Obama administration, arguing that then former Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone had conspired with the Russians to publish the DNC and Podesta emails.
In a 32-page motion defending the Trump Campaign, Michael A. Carvin of the Jones Day law firm and attorney of record representing President Trump, argued that the Trump campaign, and by inference Julian Assange at WikiLeaks, could not be held liable under the First Amendment for a disclosure of stolen information if the information published deals with “a matter of public interest” and the speaker was not “involved” in the theft.
In making the argument, Trump’s attorneys relied upon Bartnicki v. Vopper. 532 U.S. 514 (2001), a labor union case in which the Supreme Court ruled a radio station had a right to broadcast a stolen tape of a phone call between the chief union negotiator for a Pennsylvania high school and the chief union negotiator together with the union president.
Technically, Assange has not yet been indicted for any criminal offense in the United States, nor is it clear he has committed any crime. Under the Supreme Court Decisions New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), and in the Pentagon Papers case, New York Times v. U.S. 403 U.S. 713 (1971), a journalist is allowed to accept and publish classified documents provided by other sources.