Judge Denies Request to Unseal Assange Criminal Complaint Saying There is No Proof it Exists

Judge Leonie Brinkema has denied an application from the Reporters’ Committee for Freedom of the Press to unseal the U.S. government’s complaint against WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange.

By Joe Lauria
Special to Consortium News

A U.S. federal judge has ruled against a petition to unseal a criminal complaint against WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange, arguing that there is no proof that it exists. 

Judge Leonie Brinkema of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia decided on Wednesday to turn down the request by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press to make public details of the complaint, the existence of which was made known inadvertently last year. 

“The Government opposes the Committee’s application on the ground that it has neither confirmed nor denied whether charges have been filed against Assange and cannot be required to disclose that information before an arrest is made,” Brinkema wrote in her 10-page ruling.

Assange’s named appeared in a totally unrelated criminal complaint, apparently from a copy and paste mistake. The government called it an “unintentional error.” 

Brinkema ruled that despite the government’s admission of the error, “The Government has not acknowledged whether formal charges have been filed against Assange and the Committee has not cited any authority supporting the notion that the public has a right to require the Government to confirm or deny that it has charged someone.”

Assange: Remains a refugee inside Ecuador Embassy

The Reporters Committee argued in a motion that the “case against Assange is already a matter of public knowledge” and that the government cannot “put the genie back” in the bottle. But the government argued in a court hearing in November that the only conclusion that can be drawn from its admission is that a mistake was made and “anything else is speculation.”

Brinkema came down on the side of the government. “The Committee has not demonstrated with sufficient certainty that Assange has been charged,” she wrote. 

The judge ruled:

“Until there is a sufficiently certain disclosure that charges have in fact been filed, the Committee’s common law and First Amendment claims are premature. To hold otherwise would mean that any member of the public or press–by demanding access to judicial records based on little more than speculation–could effectively force the Government to admit or deny that charges had been filed.”

The Inadvertent Paragraphs

Brinkema pointed to the two paragraphs in which Assange is mentioned in the unrelated case.  The paragraphs read:

The United States has considered alternatives less drastic than sealing, including, for example, the possibility of redactions, and has determined that none would suffice to protect this investigation. Another procedure short of sealing will not adequately protect the needs of law enforcement at this time because, due to the sophistication of the defendant and the publicity surrounding the case, no other procedure is likely to keep confidential the fact that Assange has been charged.

The complaint, supporting affidavit, and arrest warrant, as well as this motion and the proposed order, would need to remain sealed until Assange is arrested in connection with the charges in the criminal complaint and can therefore no longer evade or avoid arrest and extradition in this matter.”

Brinkema: Not convinced paragraphs are evidence of complaint against Assange.

In her ruling, Brinkema wrote: “… news outlets and social media users noticed the two references to ‘Assange’ and surmised that the Government had instituted criminal charges against Julian Assange, the well-known founder of WikiLeaks, though there is no public record of such charges having been filed.”

She said her decision “lies at the intersection of two weighty interests.”  The first is the government’s “need to be able to investigate criminal activity and successfully bring to justice those charged with criminal conduct.”

The second is the public’s “right to access judicial records and proceedings, which is an indispensable feature of the American justice system.”

That public right is not “absolute,” Brinkema wrote and may be “rebutted” if the need to seal outweighs the public’s interest.

The judge wrote:

Of course, that a judicial record is subject to the right of access does not mean that the public is entitled to inspect the record at all times and in every case. To the contrary, that the right is presumptive means that it may be overcome, in favor of nondisclosure or sealing, where appropriate. This is usually the case before a charged person has been arrested because of the government’s well-established interests in preventing the accused from avoiding arrest, destroying or tampering with evidence, or otherwise interfering with the prosecution; securing privacy rights or confidential sources of information; and protecting the public.

Although the Government recognizes that First Amendment right-to-access analysis typically depends on what ‘type of document’ is being sought, it asserts that courts must also consider the ‘stage at which public access is sought,’ and specifically it argues that there is no First Amendment right to access charging documents ‘before an arrest.'”

Assange has been a refugee in the Ecuador Embassy in London since 2012 fearing that if he re-entered British territory he would be arrested and extradited to the United States to face charges that Brinkema says there is no evidence of. Senior U.S. officials have called for Assange’s arrest after WikiLeaks published classified documents revealing evidence of U.S. war crimes and corruption.

Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston GlobeSunday Times of London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached at joelauria@consortiumnews.com and followed on Twitter @unjoe .

image_pdfimage_print

45 comments for “Judge Denies Request to Unseal Assange Criminal Complaint Saying There is No Proof it Exists

  1. Deborah Andrew
    February 4, 2019 at 16:57

    As noted, there is an absolute absence of any logic in the judge’s decision, well couched in legaleese sufficient to bamboozle most, who will be afraid to admit that the ’emperor has no clothes on’ preferring to pretend to understand the glib tossing out of legal terminology in order to deceive the absence of reason or justice in this deeply disturbing decision. Another by a party hack in a country that loves its myths and abhors the truth as it is far too disturbing.

    I would think I was losing my sanity but for those who shine a light in the dark corners where the truth lies hidden.

  2. February 2, 2019 at 14:06

    Judges torturing constitutional law has become a pass time for the robed hypocrites who despise justice in the United States. There can be no justice under The Constitution for the United States and “We the People…” if any citizen can be denied the right to innocent until proven other wise. If a Constitutional Law can be over-ruled there is no justice.

  3. Lawrence Magnuson
    February 1, 2019 at 21:52

    Not to punt except toward the deep, brutal, logical rhetorical that was Kafka’s: you are guilt but not charged, you are charged but not convicted, you are a victim of the system that surrounds you. You don’t exist, ah, but you.re in prison. You are free to leave at any time and to be arrested and imprisoned. You are a life-long prisoner for telling the truth. You are free.

    • OlyaPola
      February 2, 2019 at 08:19

      “Kafka’s”

      Mr. Kafka did have the advantage of observing the demise of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in his role as insurance assessor, as did Mr. Hasek in various other roles.

      Apologies for not using a Czech keyboard.

  4. DH Fabian
    February 1, 2019 at 16:46

    I wonder just how bizarre things can get, in America’s post-reality era.

  5. February 1, 2019 at 14:19

    I will agree with the US gov on one thing here. Assange is more sophisticated than it is, or its judges are.

  6. Madeline
    February 1, 2019 at 05:37

    That’s just crazy the U.S. Won’t DEFINE IF THERE’S AN ONGOING CASE BEING PURSUED AGAINST HIM OR NOT!? HE’S NOW 7+- YEARS INTO THIS PUNISHMENT FOR DISOBEYING THE UNSPOKEN US ORDER OF “U.S. CAN BE AS CORRUPT AS THEY WANT 2B, UNDER OBAMA ETC” AND ANSWER TO NO ONE! BUT EVERYONE WILL ANSWER TO U.S.!
    HE HAS HIS RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS! BUT MAYBE THEY WON’T CHARGE HIM! MAYBE HE CAN CALL Pres. Trump THRU THE ECUADORIAN EMBASSY AND ASK HIM WHAT HE THINKS??? :)
    I mean, it is his administration and everything and he’s a GOOD COMPASSIONATE MAN THAT COULD POSSIBLY HELP GET THIS SORTED OUT FOR Julian, maybe sooner, idk.
    Does he get his Rec time & fresh air time?
    And phone calls?
    Internet access still gone?
    Shower times multiple times a week?
    Julian is in my thoughts and in my prayers! Keep the faith and pray for it to turn around! There is a God and he loves you and cares for you very much, JULIAN ASSANGE, Im holding onto my faith for YOU, claiming that what the devil meant for bad, God will turn to good for THOSE THAT LOVE HIM!! Pls pass message if possible. God bless you and be with you, MadS.

  7. Alfred
    February 1, 2019 at 02:58

    Is it then the government right “absolute” to judge & prosecute foreigners in foreign lands on unrelated charges for revenge for divulging said government wrong doings?

  8. February 1, 2019 at 00:44

    “The complaint, supporting affidavit, and arrest warrant, as well as this motion and the proposed order, would need to remain sealed until Assange is arrested in connection with the charges in the criminal complaint and can therefore no longer evade or avoid arrest and extradition in this matter.”

    If this argument is valid, they it puzzles me that Her Honor bothered to point out that Reporters’ Committee for Freedom of the Press did not prove to her satisfaction that a complaint against Assange exists. The government, in its superior wisdom, is free to keep indictment, charges, warrants etc. secret or not, and even to alternate between the two as it is the case here, and only when the affected person is already arrested then the duty of some disclosures emerges. Otherwise we would get unseemly situations when ignorant and/or malevolent flacks would deem government’s finding absurd, mendacious etc. already before the arrest.

    • DH Fabian
      February 1, 2019 at 16:51

      “The government, in its superior wisdom…” Government certainly doesn’t have superior wisdom, nor is it to be assumed that those in positions of authority are all righteous people. In cases like this, wisdom would require input from a broad range of legal experts.

  9. Jill
    January 31, 2019 at 20:48

    If no charges exist, how does this paragraph make sense? ““The United States has considered alternatives less drastic than sealing, including, for example, the possibility of redactions, and has determined that none would suffice to protect this investigation. Another procedure short of sealing will not adequately protect the needs of law enforcement at this time because, due to the sophistication of the defendant and the publicity surrounding the case, no other procedure is likely to keep confidential the fact that Assange has been charged.

    Are they “sealing” a pouch of food? If they might consider redacting, what are they redacting? Assange has been charged? What else can that mean except he has been charged?

    We should just declare ourselves the United States of Israel and Saudi Arabia and be done with it!

    • Madeleine
      February 1, 2019 at 05:48

      Why do you say United States of Israel and S.A?? Only an innocent curious question, that’s all. So do either of those 2 countries play a role in Assange’s legal ordeals???
      No? Yes? Kinda? ?

      • Chris
        February 1, 2019 at 13:36

        I think was Jill was saying is that we don’t want to become a country where the rule of law or individual rights aren’t respected.

      • Helga Fellay
        February 1, 2019 at 16:25

        Madeleine – I can’t answer for Jill, but I also refer to the USA as the United States of Israel, because we are de facto vassals of Israel. The US obeys Israel’s every order and works for the interests of Israel, even when they are in direct contradiction to the interests of the USA (just one example: the destruction of Iraq and Syria, and the planned destruction of Iran serve Israel’s “dream” of creating Greater Israel. But these countries have done no harm to the USA and pose no threat to us whatsoever. In fact, these wars have bankrupted the USA, destroyed the middle class, helped create a huge homeless crisis and caused an imminent crisis of our neglected and decayed infrastructure literally killing us as bridges and tunnels are at the point of collapse.

        Saudi Arabia is part of the Evil Empire, the Troika of Israel/US/Saudis. It’s not the people of Saudi Arabia, who are mere vassals of the “Royal” family, tyrants who are crypto Jews in alliance with Israel. Assange is a threat to the Evil Troika because he published the truth about them. So my short answer is that yes, both countries play the same role in Assange’s legal ordeals as does the USA. Think of the Troika as a close-knit family. That’s my innocent answer to your innocent question.

        • SHAFAR NULLIFIDIAN
          February 2, 2019 at 16:57

          Significant by its absence Britain and its Jewish Ruling Elite from the Coterie of Conscienceless War Criminal Nations.

  10. Andrew D. Thomas
    January 31, 2019 at 18:56

    Kafka lives! No one else could have made this up! Wait……oh, my God. Never mind. He’s still dead. And so are we.

  11. Frederike
    January 31, 2019 at 16:01

    It seems that “they” have their goal ready for Assange, no matter of proof. Any proof or no-proof will be manufactured to “their” advantage. (Meaning: to their execution of revenge.)

    How was this ‘judge’ and her pearly whites chosen to judge Assange, a man whom she obviously does not understand and knows nothing about?

  12. rosemerry
    January 31, 2019 at 15:36

    “Another procedure short of sealing will not adequately protect the needs of law enforcement” which of course are far more important than the rights of the accused, who has to be arrested before even this step is taken.

  13. mike k
    January 31, 2019 at 15:07

    OK. Looking back, I see that my post has magically appeared. Go figure?

    • Frederike
      January 31, 2019 at 16:02

      Be patient!

  14. January 31, 2019 at 13:15

    A thought crossed my mind. The reason why they haven’t already thrown a hood over his head and carried Assange off to a black installation is because Assange must have given multiple people his information on the DNC fraud, and if they did snatch Assange the information would be public across the globe in minutes.

    • Skip Scott
      January 31, 2019 at 14:30

      Hi Bob-

      I think you’re on to something, although wikileaks would probably never disclose a source, even regarding the DNC emails. But I do think that TPTB are afraid of what wikileaks may be withholding as retribution should they come and carry him off. They may have stuff that makes vault7 look like small potatoes. There also may be potential leakers who only need a little more nerve, and seeing Julian carted away might put them over the edge. They have him in a box for now, and they may be satisfied with keeping it that way. Out of sight, out of mind.

  15. H. Kelly Taylor
    January 31, 2019 at 12:56

    The Government has not acknowledged whether formal charges have been filed against Assange and the Committee has not cited any authority supporting the notion that the public has a right to require the Government to confirm or deny that it has charged someone.” This comes very close to saying there is no such thing as habeas corpus, and I guess in wackoland there isn’t.

  16. Sam F
    January 31, 2019 at 12:13

    Of course some cases must be sealed at first, to prevent defendants from hiding evidence and assets in civil cases, or fleeing in criminal cases. But the decision of which cases to seal and investigate is highly partisan.

    For example, I have a copyright racketeering case which would always be sealed if undertaken by government, until the evidence and assets were seized, but which was not only denied sealing by a federal court, but the evidence was actually published by the court to prevent any prosecution of the obviously guilty defendants. This was clearly because the stolen material was a political analysis that the judges did not agree with, and deliberately abused their public office to notify the defendants and prevent recovery of damages. Upon prosecution of the US for seizing the funds due from the defendants, another judge simply ignored all of the longstanding law and constitutional law well presented to the court, and invented ridiculous excuses with no basis in law whatsoever.

    So the decision whether to seal the action is not a decision of law, but of partisan dependency. Ridiculous legal rationales are merely thrown together contemptuously by the DOJ and rubberstamped by the judge, with no consideration whatsoever but career dependency. They are all dependent upon their tribe, and have no concern whatsoever for the law, the Constitution, or the People. The latter concerns are never more than pretexts, which the public never sees because they cannot access the evidence and argument in opposition.

    • luke
      January 31, 2019 at 20:42

      Yup. Mafia.

  17. Jeff Harrison
    January 31, 2019 at 11:18

    Sadly, the judiciary isn’t going to protect us from the depredations of fascists in government. It is our job as non-judiciary citizens to keep the likes of Eliot Abrams out of the government, not the judiciary.

  18. Antiwar7
    January 31, 2019 at 11:18

    Why would she wear a flag on her judicial robes? Like wearing the uniform of a sports team. Isn’t law supposed to be about objective rules, and not simply taking sides?

    It should be, but it’s not.

  19. dfnslblty
    January 31, 2019 at 09:33

    Of course “the law” is a constitutional controlling coërsive mechanism; in its absence is anarchy – not chaos, rather unabated violence.
    Thus, justice ought to be transparent and firm – no secret courts and no plea bargains!

    • OlyaPola
      January 31, 2019 at 15:37

      “Of course “the law” is a constitutional controlling coërsive mechanism; in its absence is anarchy – not chaos, rather unabated violence.

      Thus, justice ought to be transparent and firm – no secret courts and no plea bargains!”

      One of the useful conflations in coercive social relations is the conflation of law with justice.

      One of the uses of the conflation law/justice within a linear iteration facilitated by “ought” is in encouraging efforts of “reform” thereby ensuring the continuance of the law/justice conflation and the continuing utility of law as a tool of coercion/displacement facilitating continuing coercive social relations – a process of circular oscillation.

      Other processes of circular oscillation are facilitated by variations on the theme of “property”.

      As Mr. Bourbon is reported to have remarked “Apres nous le deluge” which is often an ideological tool resorted to by the opponents and in your phrase “in its abscence is anarchy – not chaos, rather unabated violence”.

      This is also predicated on linear logicical framing presupposing that in a complex interactive system only one variable changes leaving all others unaffected thereby seeking to preclude perception/acting of/upon opportunities of lateral transcendence.

      However in complex interactive systems all variables change with different trajectories and velocities in lateral processes.

      So how to catalyse the lateral process to transcend the paradox inherent in the conflation law/justice?

      1. Stop being immersed in the opponents divisions of labour where one decides and others are decided upon.

      2. Stop relying on precedent; test all hypotheses a-new using developing evaluation criteria and methods .

      3. Stop engaging in dressing up for the ocassion and engaging in other ceremonies of mystification.

      4. Understand that law and justice are tools of social interaction rather than restricted to tools of coercion including notions such as “God’s law”.

      5. Understand that transcendence is a lateral process not a detstination.

  20. Eric32
    January 31, 2019 at 09:21

    This lady judge mentions the US govt.’s need to investigate matters.

    But they haven’t even made moves to have an interview with Assange in the embassy, to get him on record about his source(s).

    Common sense would indicate that they would do that, especially in the matter of the DNC/Hillary emails, and the murder of DNC employee Seth Rich.

    Unless, they aren’t interested in what he might say, in a situation that they don’t have total control and coercion over him.

    • Rob Roy
      February 1, 2019 at 01:37

      Assange said, “How many times do I have to say it? The emails were LEAKED from the DNC, not HACKED by outsiders.” (that quote is close enough). That’s why he has been cut off from the outside world and why he is being killed in the embassy…one time he went three days without food. He is in solitary confinement, his health is failing. The US is waiting for him to lose his mind or die. If they get their hands on him, he will be put in prison…maybe Guantanamo…and left to rot for forever and never brought to trial. Why? Because if he’s brought to court, then The New York Times and Washington Post must also be brought to trial…and we can’t have those two lap dogs on trial, can we? Assange is an important investigative journalist who is respected by other leading reporters who actually investigate and bring forward the truth, which is why they can no longer be printed in the outlets of the propagandists. That’s why the vigil for him by these prominent writers continues. We support you, Julian.

      • Eric32
        February 3, 2019 at 12:24

        Even if Assange went to trial, there’s a legal “official secrets” stunt the US govt. can invoke that closes off the trial to the public and the (garbage) media.

        Also, the NSA has so much information collected on so many judges and prospective jurors, that they can pick judges/jurors who fit what they want, and then if need be blackmail/coerce wayward judges/jurors in the direction they want.

  21. January 31, 2019 at 07:45

    The Judge:

    “The Government opposes the Committee’s application on the ground that it has neither confirmed nor denied whether charges have been filed against Assange and cannot be required to disclose that information before an arrest is made,” Brinkema wrote in her 10-page ruling.”

    That is somewhat easy to understand. Does resemble our position on Israel’s nuclear weapons, though.

    Here come the judge again:

    “Of course, that a judicial record is subject to the right of access does not mean that the public is entitled to inspect the record at all times and in every case. To the contrary, that the right is presumptive means that it may be overcome, in favor of nondisclosure or sealing, where appropriate.”

    Easy to see why this lady is a government favorite. Who knows, judge Brinkema may surprise us.

  22. JDD
    January 31, 2019 at 07:39

    Brinkema is the same judge who presided over the trial of and silencing of Zacarias Moussaoui, in which the defendant was effectively prevented from presenting his case that Osama Bin-Laden was neither the mastermind nor the architect of the 911 atrocity, but rather he pointed to the culpability of higher levels within the Saudi royal family and government.

  23. mike k
    January 31, 2019 at 07:07

    “Judges” are just a feature of the corrupt US “justice” system. To expect any real justice from these phony puppets of the rotten US government is to be deluded, and waste your time.

    • February 1, 2019 at 14:38

      They are in a category that I call ‘appointed gatekeepers’. As Randloph Bourne points out, gatekeepers (he doesn’t use that term) can be anyone, especially when the war-making State whips up war fever. Solid individuals then become targets of “amateur” government agents. Those are gatekeepers (by my definition of gatekeeper) who help keep the rabble, even if the rabble becomes a minority, out of the hair of the State and its tools. Appointed gatekeepers are not amateurs. While they would do gatekeeping if not appointed, as appointed gatekeepers they are paid, more motivated therefore, and aware of their roles as gatekeepers. Judges are important gatekeepers (when they are gatekeepers), as are police, soldiers, conformist journos etc..

      A gatekeeper is someone who identifies power, aligns with it and seeks to protect it in return for protection. A gatekeeper is not solely interested in stopping messages by the State’s targets (which includes regular people who have opinions that the State doesn’t like). The gatekeeper hinders, in small and serious ways, individuals who he or she decides (often on their own) has the ‘wrong’ political views. The wrong political views? Those would people who believe in democracy, fairness, rules for rather than against people, etc.. In other words, those would be people whose thinking is exactly the opposite of the State and elites.

  24. Calgacus
    January 31, 2019 at 06:23

    Pretty much a foregone conclusion with this “judge”. The only thing to say is that it just shows how crazy the judicial system has become with the absurd idea of sealed indictments – from being rare, they have become almost obligatory, even in this case where everybody knows the indictment exists. I expect that with our weakness of prohibitions against torture and its increasing common practice, torture will become practically obligatory the same way. “Judge” these days means – somebody whose faculty of judgment is defective, clinically defective, to the point that they literally do not understand what ordinary people mean when they say the verb “judge”.

  25. Kieron
    January 31, 2019 at 01:19

    Time after time, the legal system in the US has shown to be totally bias. Judges afraid that the ‘wrong’ call will leave them a target for the state assassin, there is little doubt that it does. So, the democracy trumpeted about and American neocons regard as a major export is really nothing more than a shabby cheaply built and an easily discarded piece of junk once it’s been played with a few times. Not now the plastic toys found in cornflake boxes of years gone by, but the lives of the tellers of truth. We are all gradually becoming that piece of junk!

  26. Smedley Butler
    January 31, 2019 at 00:48

    Our courts are laughing stock packed with partisan hacks.

    • OlyaPola
      January 31, 2019 at 01:38

      “Our courts are laughing stock packed with partisan hacks.”

      Perhaps the most important packaging is the window dressing of representing rule by law as the rule of law – an iteration of the technique of representing class based social relations as non-class based social relations as “equal before the law” replicating notions of “we”.

      The law is a tool of control, a coercive mechanism inherent in the continuation of the temporary social relations presently self-described as “The United States of America”, not restricted to the political geographical area presently self-described as “The United States of America” which the Monroe doctrine sought/seeks to re-define.

      • Maxwell Quest
        January 31, 2019 at 13:17

        Excellent points, OlyaPola! To the commoner, laws glow with the illusion of “rightness”, and he is generally unaware that they are neither fairly targeted or enforced, making him a victim of them much more frequently than the wealthy.

        “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.” – Tacitus

        • OlyaPola
          January 31, 2019 at 15:47

          ““The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.” – Tacitus”

          I may be suffering from memory loss but I can’t remember whether Tacitus remembered the punchline:

          The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the lawyers.

          Enjoy your journey.

          • February 1, 2019 at 07:52

            OlyaPola, thank you. Laws made by lawyers for lawyers. Only exposure I remember was when insurers tried to get medical malpractice reform. Lawyers on both sides came out of the woodwork to fight against things like controlling contingency fees. All objections couched in high sounding statements about freedom and the Constitution.

          • OlyaPola
            February 2, 2019 at 05:08

            Re : Herman February 1, 2019 at 7:52 am (At least at some location on the planet, perhaps in emulation to railway time-tables in “The Soviet Union” which were always based on Moscow time).

            “Lawyers on both sides came out of the woodwork to fight against things like controlling contingency fees.”

            Thank you for your illustration which has wide application in undermining illusions widely held/practiced in temporary social relation presently self-described as “The United of America” and elsewhere.

            Normally in analyses the contextual framework is outlined from inception to allow others to test hypotheses.

            Contextual framing

            1. All phenomena have half-lives of varying trajectory and velocity.

            2. Some observers of these lateral processes perceive corruption/decay as a function of resort to various methods facilitating confirmation bias, whereas some practitioners perceive opportunities of fertilisation through other methods.

            3. The temporary social relations self-described as “The Soviet Union” were emulative in varying trajectory and velocity of the temporary social relations presently self-described as “The United of America” and elsewhere, primarily as a function of shared perceptions that adversarial relationships were/are efficient in respect of their purpose both internally and externally.

            4. That adversarial relations including “competition” facilitate the continuance of coercive social relations through linear “reform” based upon the self-interest of the participants.

            5. That adversarial relations including “competition” based on precedent are immersive given that the participants are largely engaged in “fighting old battles”.

            6. That opportunities of transcendence are functions of increasing trajectories and velocities of adversarial relations facilitated by the immersion in, perception of, projection of, and resort to a greater assay of adversarial relations by those being transcended.

            “Laws made by lawyers for lawyers.”

            To be a lawyer requires some immersion in the concept and practice of “law” and an interest in its continuation limiting “reform” within a linear frame.

            To be a lawyer requires some immersion in and resort to precedent.

            Consequently the system of “law” is restricted within the tolerances of the system.

            Contributions of lawyers and others to the dissolution of “ The Soviet Union” and “The United States of America.

            Khrushchev was an apparatchik who tried to reform “The Soviet Union”; Mr. Gorbachev was/is a lawyer who tried to reform “The Soviet Union”.

            Their purposes were similar – to increase the efficiency and sustainability of “The Soviet Union”; their “strategies/tactics” which largely were projections of their context/expectations/experience were dissimilar; the outcomes of their efforts were similar – contributing to the transcendence of “The Soviet Union”.

            As described in thumbnail in a different thread : https://consortiumnews.com/2019/01/29/the-making-of-juan-guaido-us-regime-change-laboratory-created-venezuelas-coup-leader/#comments

            “The Soviet Union” was emulative of “The United States of America” in seeking to create a coercive class society under the cloak of a cooperative non-class society; a supposed meritocracy, beacon on a hill, land of opportunity without defining opportunity or to whom.

            The length of their respective time frames was facilitated by many factors inherent in coercive social relations including but not limited to the use of the other, the nostrum of we, and the usages of benefits derived from exploitation internally and externally, plus the process of transcendence of temporary social relationships self-described as “The Soviet Union” and “The United States of America” was ongoing from inception as a consequence of the experience of “The Soviet Union” and “the United States of America” of a growing sum of some of the population of “The Soviet Union”, “The United States of America” and of others, presenting in various indications of alienation, all of which undermined the use of the other, definitions of we, and the usages of benefits derived from exploitation internally and externally.

            In such scenarios – some seek to maintain “The United States of America” through increasing and widening resort to coercion including displacement, some seek to “reform” “The United States of America”, some seek to wear new clothes to benefit from the opportunities of dissolution of “The United States of America”, and some aided/aid the transcendence of “The United States of America” through co-operative systems of equal and different – a lateral process which continues.”

            Mr. Rove’s observation that “You can fool some of the people all of the time and those are the one’s you should concentrate on” still has an assay of validity and the efforts of lawyers and others is to contribute to attempts to increase the sum of some of the people who are foolish, a consequence of which being the reduction of the sum of the some of the some of the people who are foolish.

            On present analyses including some performed by “The Department of Defence” adversarial and coercive relations will be transcended through various trajectories at various velocities, whether by reducing the sum of all of the people to near zero through various consequences of adversarial relations including relations to the environment, or by drowning a drowning man with the minimum of blow-back through co-operation, which may in some instances be restricted to complicity which condition ends.

Comments are closed.