Assange extradition “unwarranted in the extreme” - US legislative analyst

international | crime and justice | press release Monday January 03, 2011 21:18 by pseudonym - if any

Jurisdiction of Espionage Act has limits

Legislative Analyst and Writer Arthur Stopes, III, of Berkeley, California state, has analysed the legalities of the threat to extradite Julian Assange to the United States, particularly with respect to the limits of federal law, and has reached the following conclusion: "Extradition, in view of the LIMITED jurisdiction of the over-vaunted "Espionage Act", is unwarranted in the extreme."
Stopes' letter to Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and WikiLeaks whistleblower Julian Assange reads as follows:

Dear Daniel Ellsberg, Julian Assange, et al.:
(Please forward to all concerned parties.)

Prefatory Comment -
Re Julian Assange and "WikiLeaks"; there is a great need to clarify the lawful LIMITS of federal jurisdiction.

If Julian Assange is presently at risk, it is essential that he and others be apprised of this knowledge. Just as some have called for the "wholesale declassification" of government secrets, there is an equally great need for what appears to be "Law" to be shed of symbolaeography [1] (encoded language), by which the seeming "authority" of government is magnified, the route to Justice is obscured, and the rule of Tyranny is thus insured.

I will attempt to explain this important subject, in view of the so-called "Espionage Act" which is threatened to be misapplied to Mr. Assange's situation, which is not yet a "case".

Below are the sections of the federal (U.S.) government's Espionage Act of 1917, found at 18 U..S.C. Sec. 792 et seq. ("Title" 18 (of 50), United States Code, Sections 792 to 799). As of "02/01/2010", it is as follows:

TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 37 - ESPIONAGE AND CENSORSHIP
Sec.
[791. Repealed.]
792. Harboring or concealing persons.
793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.
794. Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government.
795. Photographing and sketching defense installations.
796. Use of aircraft for photographing defense installations.
797. Publication and sale of photographs of defense installations.
798. Disclosure of classified information.
798A. Temporary extension of section 794.
799. Violation of regulations of National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Penalties for espionage:
Those sections in which an "act of espionage" is actionable are in boldface and underlined, above. [2]
Fines and penalties are listed for each of those below, respectively.

Re: 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.
(a) - (f) "Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
(g) "... each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy."

Re: 794. Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government.
"[An] Act [of] Sept. 3, 1954, increased the penalty for peacetime espionage and corrected a deficiency on the sentencing authority by increasing penalty to death or imprisonment for any term of years."

Re: 798. Disclosure of classified information.
"Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." And;

Re: The "Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950".
An "act of espionage" is also actionable where one is in violation of the "Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950". [3][4]

Penalties prescribed for violating section 18(a) - (f) of the Act ''Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." Or, re section (18)(g), "... each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy." (These are
all prefaced by the statement "Amending Title 18, Section 793, United States Code".)

However:
Such considerations of "penaties", having been brought to the attention of the public, tend to obscure the LIMITS of federal (or state) legislation; all judgments must rest upon three important facets of jurisdiction;
(1), in personam jurisdiction (who?); (2), subject jurisdiction (what?); (3), and venue jurisdiction (where?).

Re in personam jurisdiction: The United States Codes apply only to "citizens of the United States" ("14th Amendment" citizens), and certainly not to C/citizens of Australia, or other foreign states. (Note lower case.)

Re subject jurisdiction: Following the above, it must be determined whether the act of releasing information is in fact injurious to the "United States" - as legally defined in the same United States Code. (See below.)

Re venue jurisdiction: It is also pertinent to determine whether the act of releasing information took place in the "United States" or within a "State", as statutorily defined; i.e., as defined in the United States Code.

Here (probably to the surprise of most readers), the "United States" as defined in the United States Codes IS the District of Columbia (over which the U.S. Congress may "exercise exclusive Legislation"), AND the "Territory or other Property belonging to the United States" for which the Congress may "make all needful Rules and Regulations". Any "Powers" of the Congress and its subordinate departments and agencies over the states of the Union are LIMITED to those delegated to them by the de jure states (then spelled by the capitonym "States"), in the organic "Constitution for the United States of America" (the Preamble "title").

It is little-known that, on the same day that the post-"Civil" War Congress introduced the "14th Amendment" to be (declared) "Approved", on July 20, 1868, the Congress actually re-defined 'the word "State"to mean and include a Territory and District of Columbia". (Statutes at Large, Volume XV., Page 166.) [5]

Therefore:
As that subterfuge was doubtless employed in order that the same novel meaning was applied to the so-called (but never ratified) "14th Amendment", it is instructive to notice the same, deceptive Congressional (or statutory) language as it relates to the Espionage Act, inasmuch as Mr. Assange is currently threatened by its application.

Compare the definitions of "State" in the respective sections of the Espionage Act:
Re: 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.
Sub-section (h)(1) -
"For the purposes of this subsection, the term "State" includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States."

Of course, a word or legal term cannot be defined by itself, and so the word or term "State" does here, indeed, mean only the "District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States."

Re: 794. Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government.
Sub-section (d)(1)(B) -
"For the purposes of this subsection, the term "State" includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States." (See above.)

Re: 798. Disclosure of classified information.
Sub-section (d)(5) -
"As used in this subsection, the term "State" means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States." (See above.)

Re: The "Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950".
Sec. 3. For the purposes of this title-
(9) The term ''United States'', when used in a geographical sense, includes the several States, Territories, and possessions of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the Canal Zone. [Emphasis added.]

Of course, the word or legal term "several States" is NOT, in the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, "used in a geographical sense" - except to obscure the Congress' utter lack of "authority" to prohibit such activities, unless "calling forth the Militia to ... suppress Insurrections and repel invasions". (Not assemblies.)

Conclusive evidence of "State" vs. "state", by Congress:
Evidence of the consistency of the post-1868 Congress' use of the re-defined "State" is revealed in a later part of Title 18 U.S. Code, at Section 3077 - also concerning espionage. [6] Notice that the word "state" is NOT capitalized only in Sub-section (6), where it refers to "any state, provincial, municipal, or other political subdivision of a foreign country;". [Emphasis added.]

Conclusion:
It is evident from the above rather brief analysis, that neither in personam, subject, nor venue jurisdiction(s) apply in the matter of Julian Assange and/or "WikiLeaks". Extradition, in view of the LIMITED jurisdiction of the over-vaunted "Espionage Act" (vis-a-vis the lawful requirements as cited above), is unwarranted in the extreme.

Sincerely,
Arthur Stopes, III.
Legislative Analyst and Writer (L.A.W.)
Berkeley, California state.*
(510) 548-5238.

* Not "CA".
(CA means a Federal POSSESSION, in California state.)

Notes:
[1] symbolaeography: "The art or cunning rightly to form and make written instruments" - and legislation.
[2] See 18 USC Sec. 3077(8)(A). (Note [6].)
[3] See 18 USC Sec. 3077(8)(B). (Note [6].)
[4] Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950
U.S. Statutes at Large, 81st Cong., II Sess., Ch. 1024, p. 987-1031 (1950)

AN ACT
To protect the United States against certain un-American and subversive activities by requiring registrationof Communist organizations, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the ''Internal Security Act of 1950''.
TITLE I - SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL

Sec. 4. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to combine, conspire, or agree, with any other person to perform any act which would substantially contribute to the establishment within the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, as defined in paragraph (15) of section 3 of this title, the direction and control of which is to be vested in, or exercised by or under the domination or control of, any foreign government, foreign organization, or foreign individual: Provided, however, That this subsection shall not apply to the proposal of a constitutional amendment.

[5] "An Act imposing Taxes on distilled Spirits and Tobacco, and for other purposes." [Emphasis added.][6] TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART II - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 204 - REWARDS FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING TERRORIST ACTS AND ESPIONAGE
Sec. 3077. Definitions
As used in this chapter, the term -
(3) "United States property" means any real or personal property which is within the United States or, if outside the United States, the actual or beneficial ownership of which rests in a United States person or any Federal or State governmental entity of the United States;

(4) "United States", when used in a geographical sense, includes Puerto Rico and all territories and possessions of the United States;

(5) "State" includes any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any other possession or territory of the United States;

(6) "government entity" includes the Government of the United States, any State or political subdivision thereof,
any foreign country, and any state, provincial, municipal, or other political subdivision of a foreign country;
[Emphasis added.]

(8) "act of espionage" means an activity that is a violation of -
(A) section 793, 794, or 798 of this title; or
(B) section 4 of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950.