The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, said the moon could be extradited from Great Britain to the United States to release espionage charges for the publication of confidential military documents.
The district court judge Vanessa Baraitser is expected to make his decision at the Old Bailey court in London on Monday. If you submit the petition, the Secretary of the Interior Priti Patel, will take the final decision.
The court that will certainly appeal to the decision, which could provoke years of more legal disputes.
Without embarrassment, there is a possibility that external actors will intervene, which could end up in the story that there is a decade ahead.
Stella Morris, Assange’s partner and mother of two, asked President Donald Trump on Twitter to send an indictment to Assange before the cargo hits January 20.
And although Trump has no plans to sue his successor, Joe Biden, he could adopt a more lenient approach to the Assange extradition process.
The tax authorities are prosecuting Assange, 49 years, 17 years of espionage and one used computer that contains a maximum sentence of 175 years in prison.
The lawyers representing the governing body will play in their final allotments at a weekly court hearing in the manner in which the Assange defense team planted questions that were neither relevant nor admissible.
“Systematically, the defense relies on this tribunal as dictatorship, acting on the basis of the presentation that United States of America is guilty of torture, war crimes, homicide, violations of diplomatic and international law, and that United States sin ley ‘”, dijeron los abogados. “They are solely solicited by their legally enforceable in this process, as long as no one is harmed.”
The defense alleges that Assange relied on the protections that the First Amendment provides — of the Constitutional Constitution — for the publication of filtered documents exposing the constitutional actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In its final statements in writing, Assange’s team met with the United States in a “extraordinary, precedent-setting and politicized” enactment that constituted a “flagrant negation of its right to freedom of expression and to represent a fundamental commitment to freedom” the world ”.