Posted on May 21 2019
SpicyFiles has a few files to STOP. DROP & ROLL...
this entry bends around a corner & returns home......
as in Twitter circa 2010-present
I’m not a journalist nor am I paid nor have I ever asked to be compensated in any manner or means. So any assertion that I’m biased or I’m being “handled” or “I’m a grifter”, well that’s just totally adorable. Because if you know where my checks are, could you please let me know. (snort)
I tend to get down into the nitty gritty of various filings. It’s my thing and it’s totally okay to judge me because I laugh at myself, a lot.
Shortly after word broke that Assange was arrested, I rhetorically asked (see archived twitter thread or archived unrolled thread) In the very early morning hours of April 12, 2019 I noted how (from a sequential standpoint) there appeared to be numerous documents that had yet to be uploaded to the Assange Docket. In my business this was a: holy shittlestix what in the hell is going on with Assange’s docket. Specifically attorneys know how a docket should read as in minimal skip-jacks and out of number sequencing.
Why did that matter? Well it meant there were nearly a dozen documents that were either under seal or otherwise hidden from the public. In the normal course of business, when an indictment is unsealed (by Order of the Court following the Government’s request to unseal), the standard protocol is some (not all) of the documents are also unsealed. During the immediate hours after Assange’s rather public arrest, I started asking a series of questions. For example:
- Where are all the other documents preceding April 11 2019?
- When will those documents be unsealed?
- How many cases are we talking about?
- don't get ahead of your skis and tie this to Trump & WikiLeaks circa 2016 president election
- 🌶You need to pay very close attention to journalist & media outlets who will amplify and feign concern about our “free press” and “first amendment issues”
- helping someone “hack” the DOD and SIPRNet is not journalism.
🌶 committing a crime, such as hacking or attempting to break the cipher of encrypted Federal Databases and/or Networks is not journalism. It is engaging in actual and prosecutable Cyber Criminal Conduct. Leaking SARs and personal medical records is not journalism, it’s being an asshole. Especially if you’re an officer of the Court. You take an oath and you are (rightfully so) bound by that oath & the various canons (where you’ve been admitted to the Bar). Granted as of late i can admit that I’m extremely thankful I am essentially permanently banned from twitter. The proliferation of Deza-Barbie Dispair, Deza in general, Social Media Winners and Losers and “some” journalist taking cheap shots and disinformation, all of which is exhausting. I am also pretty sure I’d be instantly suspended from twitter, given I would likely tweet: “STFU you insane deza shit gibbon”...
As of late, watching various Twitter Resistance “stars” going after Comey, Mueller, Pelosi. I literally have one question: ARE YOU INSANE? Comparing the current Speaker of the House to a Nazi Sympathizer? What the actual fucking fuck. Not to be outdone by their previous scurrilous Deza-Bullshit this user is now saying Robert Swan Mueller the third is somehow complicit and can’t be trusted. What the actual fuck. Seriously just delete your tweet account because apparently your mask has fully slipped off.
And those that followed me on twitter on what ever iteration of my account know, I rarely if ever used hashtags nor did I ever “claim” to be part of the Resistance. Furthermore it is entirely frustrating watching how gossip & rumor catch like wild-fire but truth and facts rarely, if ever actually “go viral”.
As you know, I like facts. A lot. I also like dots. And clearly I like connecting dots.
What I don’t like is “paid and controlled opposition”. Because it’s subversive bullshit, that is effectively ruining the public's trust and faith in our Fourth Estate. Perhaps I’m naive I’ve always thought real news meant journalist report the facts, and made valiant efforts to refrain from allowing their own personal bias seep into their articles. After all that’s what Op-Eds are for, right?
And sure I can be super and sometimes unbearably tough on certain mainstream media outlets. I unapologetically do not consider the Intercept, RT, WikiLeaks “mainstream” or First Look Media (who BTW have filed some vulgar things in the SDNY cases involving Felix Sater circa 1998 to present, as in submitting filings because a “reporter is writing a book about Sater”)...But journalisms should have a high level of integrity vs “hey look at me I’m a FOIA Terrorist”...meaning if you really are a solid journalist you would never agree to help your source “break in” to our Country’s Defense Information Database(s). Like EVER. Full Stop.
The scale and scope of the Manning & WikiLeaks in-retrospect...the original filing error that launched a lot of Lawsuits & FOIA Requests...I’m sure there’s some twitter archive of mine floating around but I’m honestly sick of trying to track down my previous research...
What you should know is, often times criminal matters start off with a mj (magistrate judge) and/or sw (search warrant) case assignment both using the bates system. Whereas gj = Grand Jury. As it were, apparently I wasn’t the only one who noticed the Assange Docket had a lot of missing documents. As such lawyers for the “Reporters Committee” filed a motion to unseal other documents on Assange’s EDVA docket.
On April 26, 2019 the Government responded to the Court & Reporters Committee. In short the filing that remained a point of contention was a “private letter”. Discussion of said letter can be found on Pages 1 and 4, specifically on page 4 which reads in part:
Docket item #15 appears to have been submitted to the Court by an
individual who intended that it be filed without redaction and not under seal. Inasmuch as the author of the letter appears to have intended that it be filed without redaction and not under seal, that person appears to have waived the protection of Rule 49.1(a). (emphasis added)
Subsequently thereafter, respect to Assange’s EDVA matter, specifically document #15, about a week ago the Judge Ordered the Government to file a “redacted” version of Document No 15, entitled “private letter”...on May 13, 2019 the Government Filed the following Notice.
The “private letter” ...again I do not condone doxing of any kind and while the Government and subsequently the Court are in agreement that the author of said letter, Ms Dagmar Palmgrove Palmer (link to her two page letter) “intended that it be filed without redaction and not under seal” ...I’ve taken the liberty of redacting her email address and phone number.
But even before we dissect Ms Palmer’s letter I noticed a few details. For example she used the incorrect mailing address for EDVA, Assange’s Case is in EDVA-Alexandria. More broadly EDVA actually operates out of four locations; Alexandria, Norfolk, Richmond and Newport News, respectively.
Her letter then goes on to “RE” 18-4/10GJ3793/19-134 to an average person the subject line in Ms Palmer’s letter (re Assange EDVA) looks like a random grouping of letters and numbers. I can assure you that is not the case (pun not intended) that upon closer inspection the reference line is in fact a previous (and docketed) Case. A case originated in EDVA-Alexandria specifically NSD.
The “10GJ3793” referenced in her subject line, I would submit is case No: 1:11-dm-0003. Specifically re 10GJ37973 - yes GJ = Grand Jury. And what do you know this case was Twitter, National Defense/Security Matters and Assange and Manning. This is important and should not be ignored”
Which resulted in this ruling and rather pointed language from the Judge...but at the heart of the matter the December 10, 2011 Twitter Order - mandated that Twitter hand over to the Government Twitter account information for the following users:
The Twitter Order came before the Court upon the government’s motion and supporting application for an order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2703(d). Section 2703(d) provides in pertinent part:
“(d) Requirements for court order.--A court order for disclosure under subsection (b) or (c) may be issued by any court that is a court of competent jurisdiction and shall issue only if the governmental entity offers specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal
Weird? NYET it’s almost like someone talked and walked you through the fubar and toxic shit-cess-pool that is Twitter, NatSec letters and how 2010 via Manning was super bad that Twitter had to subpoenaed👈🏻 the DOJ Letter to Twitter and Twitter’s year long litigation battle with our Government and WikiLeaks (all) links embedded in that previous write up.
With respect to Case No: “10GJ3793“ the Judge issued this final ruling on the related matters and noted the reassignment:
“...the case previously numbered10-gj-3793 was transferred to new case number l:ll-ec-3...”
The last entry for EDVA Case No:10GJ3793 occurred on May 6, 2013 (paywall) which is why last month I asked (albeit rhetorically) “how many cases Julian” I wasn’t being cagy or snarky. I was asking a genuine question because in my limited research I found multiple cases, most of which went unnoticed.
The Mother of All Open Source links to the entire 10GJ3793 Docket, again it centers around the DOJ and the Court ordering Twitter to Release various records of multiple WikiLeaks parties related to Manning’s massive leak. If I were a reporter I’d ask why would Dagmar’s Palmgrove Palmer March 2019 (docketed May 2019) letter explicitly referenced at least two prior cases. Keep in mind the Twitter Accounts listed in case 10GJ3793 WikiLeaks housed their severs in Iceland. But I’m not a reporter...I just like to read, a lot.
Now back to the main-event Ms Dagmar Palmgrove Palmer’s letter to the Court concerning Julian Assange; I’ll admit I’ve read her two page letter four times and I don’t know if she’s mentally unwell or if this is some type of coded front facing message. I’m leaning to words she has to be...well hell you read her letter and you draw your own conclusions.
In all seriousness I didn’t know what to make of Dagmar Palmgrove Palmer’s letter, it seems super irrelevant until you start to pull back and realize that recently team Cyber Espionage colloquially known as WikiLeaks & ASSange are amplifying Assange’s vociferous request to extradite Assange back to Australia...so for now I’m put a pin in Dagmar’s letter. I suspect it’s real purpose with eventually reveal itself.
Swedish Prosecution Authority...
However in semi-related news regarding Julian Assange, yesterday (May 20, 2019) the Swedish Prosecution Authority, Deputy Director of Public Prosecution Eva-Marie Persson formally requested and submitted “the court to detain Julian Assange in his absence. After the detention hearing the prosecutor will be present for questions from the media.”.
See official May 20, 2019 Press Release
This is why you should always review the other cases regarding Julian Assange in the U.K. and Sweden.
In the event of a conflict between a European Arrest Warrant and a request for extradition from the US, UK authorities will decide on the order of priority. The outcome of this process is impossible to predict. However, in my view the Swedish case can proceed concurrently with the proceedings in the UK”, says Deputy Director of Public Prosecution Eva-Marie Persson.
See official “reopening” and adjudication (3 page Court Order) of Assange (alleged) Rape, Swedish Case No: 0201-K246314-10 the relevant sections can be found on page 2 of the May 13, 2019 Swedish Court Order:
The UK has since received an extradition request from the United States for JA to be extradited as a suspect for US crimes. By 14 June 2019, a formal extradition request will be submitted to the UK.
To prove the authenticity of the aforementioned Swedish Court Documents, See May 13, 2019 “official” Swedish Prosecution Authority Press Release, which reads in part and hyperlinks to the Court Order:
Reopening the investigation means that a number of investigative measures will take place.
-In my opinion a new interview with the suspect is required. It may be necessary, with the support of a European Investigation Order, to request an interview with JA be held in the UK. Such an interview, however, requires JA’s consent, says Eva-Marie Persson.
Case number in Stockholm District Court: B 12885-10.
Now pardon me, I must return to my incredibly busy schedule of eating bon bons, bean flicking and binge watching Oprah because according to some that’s what a a bored housewife does. 😂 NYET😂 although if I’m going to be intellectually honest I’ve (binged) watched this video...a lot
And lest we forget this February 2018 ruling (weird how my AltSpicerlies Twitter Account was suspended shortly after I posted the two UK adjudications)...NYET the two February 2018 rulings...those twitter threads are long gone thanks to the petty & petulant troll gang, not really a smart move to inject “targets” with ghost but more on that much later...see on the inter-tubes there are some fragments of my previous twitter accounts.
#1 RULING OF THE SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE (THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE) EMMA ARBUTHNOT Ruling NO. 2 13TH FEBRUARY 2018 Introduction 1. On 6th February 2018 I gave a ruling that the arrest warrant issued under section 7 of the Bail Act 1976 ("the Act") was valid even though the underlying extradition....
# 2 AN APPLICATION BY JULIAN ASSANGE TO CANCEL AN ARREST WARRANT RULING OFTHE SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE (THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE) EMMA ARBUTHNOT, 6TH FEBRUARY 2018 Introduction 1. This is an application made by Mark Summers QC leading Ms Helen Law on behalf of Julian Assange that I withdraw an arrest warrant issued at this court when Mr Assange did not...
-SpicyFiles Out, for now...pardon me I must get back to my very busy eating bon bons and binge watching Oprah because I have a very busy bean flicking schedule (not). until then you’ll know where to find me, I’m exactly where I need to be...here.
While you're here, throw us a bone.
Mad Dog is thrilled to have Spicy in our PAC(k). We are proud to provide a space for her tireless, hard hitting, in-depth investigations. But we can’t do it without you.
Our numbers are growing. Our voices are being heard. Our campaigns are making a difference. Help us, and Spicy, continue to fight the good fight. Consider a donation to help support the work of Mad Dog PAC today.