Meetings scheduled on compensation for Utah’s ‘downwinders’ affected by nuclear testing
https://www.thespectrum.com/story/news/2022/10/24/meetings-scheduled-compensation-utahs-nuclear-downwinders/10588294002/ David DeMille, St. George Spectrum & Daily News,
Southern Utah’s thousands of “downwinders” — people whose families suffered high rates of cancer attributed to U.S. nuclear weapons testing in the Nevada desert in the 1950s and ’60s — could be eligible for federal compensation.
An estimated 60,000 people were exposed to radioactive fallout in southern Utah during the testing programs that took place at the Nevada Test Site, where nuclear weapons were tested and much of the radiation was sent “downwind” to the east via the prevailing winds.
For years, the federal government has issued money to those affected via the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which was set to expire this summer but was extended by Congress for another two years.
Qualifying downwinders, or spouses and/or children of deceased loved ones, may apply for up to $50,000 in compensation.
To help residents learn more about the program and whether they may be eligible for some of the compensation funds, St. George area medical officials are set to host a series of meetings this week in rural communities. Representatives from Intermountain Healthcare are also taking questions via phone from anyone interested.
The act allows qualifying downwinders to receive a one-time payout of $50,000, said Becky Barlow, project director and nurse practitioner at the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program (RESEP) Clinic at Intermountain St. George Regional Hospital. Test site workers can apply for $75,000, and certain uranium workers can apply for $100,000.
“We are pleased that the president and Congress would continue to support downwinders and uranium workers that were unknowingly exposed because of nuclear testing or jobs in uranium mining and refinement,” Barlow said.
Applications and information are available by calling 435-251-4760.
The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act was first passed in 1990 as an alternative to costly litigation to ensure the federal government met its financial responsibilities to workers who became sick as a result of the radiation hazards of their jobs. Coverage was broadened a decade later.
There was some question about whether the program might end this year, but the two-year extension takes it through summer 2024. It also covers some different cancers and includes different stipulations, so people who were denied in past attempts might be eligible under the new rules.
If possible, the Department of Justice prefers to award the money directly to the person impacted by the testing. However, if that person is already deceased, their legal spouse can apply for the money, and in some cases the person’s children or grandchildren can also apply.
“If you had a family member impacted and you don’t know if they filed, you can contact us to check,” Barlow said.
Anyone with questions regarding the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or in need of screenings, should call 435-251-4670.
David DeMille writes about southwestern Utah for The Spectrum & Daily News, a USA TODAY Network newsroom based in St. George. Follow him at @SpectrumDeMille or contact him at ddemille@thespectrum.com.
‘Whistleblower’ says legal battle with nuclear site owners ‘almost broke me’
A consultant who claims she was dismissed by Sellafield for exposing failures to address a “toxic” working culture has been granted an appeal against her employment tribunal loss.
Yorkshire Post, By Nathan Hyde, 23 Oct 22,
Equality and diversity consultant Alison McDermott said her contract at the nuclear processing plant ended after she wrote a damning “whistleblowing” report about the human resources (HR) leadership team, claiming they had failed to address complaints about bullying and harassment.
After refusing a £160,000 settlement, she took her case to an employment tribunal. But Employment Judge Philip Lancaster dismissed her claim and ruled she was not a whistleblower, following a hearing in Leeds.
She was then ordered to pay £40,000 to help cover the legal costs of Sellafield Ltd and its parent company – the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.
Ms McDermott, from Burley in Wharfedale, has been granted an appeal and she is now raising money to cover her legal costs, ahead of the next hearing in January.
Her legal team have challenged the ruling, but also criticised the judge for refusing to look at the alleged “toxic culture” at Sellafield and alleged failure of the HR team. They said this provides vital context, as it explains Ms McDermott’s decision to become a whistleblower.
“I am doing everything I can because I’m really concerned about what’s going on at Sellafield,” she said………………………………
Ms McDermott signed a two-day-a-week contract with Sellafield Ltd to work as a consultant in equality and diversity at the nuclear fuel reprocessing and decommissioning site in September 2018.
After taking on the role, looked into allegations of sexual harrasment and homophobic abuse.
She also recieved an anonymous letter claiming “serious problems” about sexual harassment “are being ignored”.
The following month, she compiled a report on the HR leadership team, saying they were viewed as “broken and dysfunctional”
by some staff and failing to effectively deal with allegations of harassment and bullying.
Shortly after filing the report, she was told her £1,500-a-day contract would be terminated due to “funding constraints”.
But during the tribunal, Sellafield’s lawyers said it was because the report, which had cost around £12,000, was “questionable and insubstantial” and “lacked any meaningful analysis”.
According to the ruling, the judge accepted the funding constraints excuse was used to allow Ms McDermott to leave “with her head held high”.
He ruled she was not a whistleblower, because she could not make any “disclosures” which are protected under UK employment law.
Sellafield Ltd, which has previously stated it is committed to eradicating bullying and harassment, has been approached for comment. https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/people/whistleblower-says-legal-battle-with-nuclear-site-owners-almost-broke-me-3889870
EU Taxonomy Labelling Gas and Nuclear as ‘Green’ Faces Legal Challenges
Activists and environmental organisations immediately opposed the decision, saying the new law discredits EU efforts to establish itself as a global leader on climate policy and only risks delaying Europe’s transition to a net-zero economy by further encouraging investments in the fossil fuel industry.
In September, Greenpeace and a separate alliance of environmental groups, including Client Earth and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), requested a legal review of the decision. Austria’s recent lawsuit is now adding to the legal challenges the European Commission is already facing.
https://earth.org/eu-taxonomy-legal-challenges/ MARTINA IGINIE OCT 13TH 2022
Austria has filed a lawsuit against the European Commission’s decision to label nuclear and gas as ‘green’ investments. The controversial EU taxonomy approved by the European Parliament in July is already facing two other legal challenges from environmental groups.
On Friday, Austria submitted a lawsuit to the Court of the European Union, asking for an overturn of the contentious EU taxonomy.
Approved in July, the legal text designated natural gas and nuclear as environmentally sustainable energy sources, encouraging investments in these energy sources. Under the EU taxonomy, new nuclear and gas-fired plants built through 2030 will be recognised as a transitional energy source as long as they are used to replace dirtier fossil fuels such as oil and coal.
The country’s minister for climate action and Green politician, Leonore Gewessler, described the EU’s decision as “irresponsible” and “unreasonable” and said it was “misleading” to consumers and investors to label gas – a fossil fuel responsible for climate change for its greenhouse gas emissions – as “green”.
However, Brussels reassured that gas and nuclear-related activities may be labeled as “green” only if they meet certain criteria. Particularly, the legal text specifies that gas projects should only be financed if direct emissions are kept under a maximum cap and they switch to fully renewable energy by 2035. Similarly, nuclear power may be funded only in compliance with certain standards for the disposal of radioactive waste.
Activists and environmental organisations immediately opposed the decision, saying the new law discredits EU efforts to establish itself as a global leader on climate policy and only risks delaying Europe’s transition to a net-zero economy by further encouraging investments in the fossil fuel industry.
In September, Greenpeace and a separate alliance of environmental groups, including Client Earth and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), requested a legal review of the decision. Austria’s recent lawsuit is now adding to the legal challenges the European Commission is already facing.
Despite not joining the legal action, Germany supported the country’s decision to file a lawsuit, adding that “it is good that the objections to the taxonomy regulation will now be reviewed by the courts.”
Austria Sues EU Executive Over Green Label for Gas, Nuclear
https://www.voanews.com/a/austria-sues-eu-executive-over-green-label-for-gas-nuclear-/6784510.html BERLIN — 10 Oct 22,
The Austrian government said Monday it has filed a legal complaint with the European Union’s top court over plans by the bloc’s executive branch to label natural gas and nuclear power generation as sustainable energies.
Austria’s environment minister, Leonore Gewessler, warned that the measure could “greenwash” nuclear power and gas despite the environmental damage they cause.
Another EU member, Luxembourg, announced later that it would stand by Austria in the legal case, adding more political weight to the move.
The EU’s executive Commission plans to add certain nuclear and gas plants next year to a list that helps investors determine which projects are sustainable.
Gewessler said the disasters in Chernobyl in Ukraine and Fukushima in Japan have showed that nuclear power plants come with “incalculable risks.” Meanwhile, the burning of natural gas, a fossil fuel, adds greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere, stoking climate change.
A dozen environmental groups have already launched legal challenges to the Commission’s plans, backed by the bloc’s lawmakers in July.
Austria’s environment minister, Leonore Gewessler, warned that the measure could “greenwash” nuclear power and gas despite the environmental damage they cause.
Another EU member, Luxembourg, announced later that it would stand by Austria in the legal case, adding more political weight to the move.
Austria has filed a legal case against European Union’s inclusion of nuclear and gas as “clean” in the EU “taxonomy”
Staunchly anti-nuclear Austria said on Friday it had followed through on a
pledge to file a legal challenge to the European Union’s inclusion of
natural gas and nuclear energy in a list of “green” investments. At issue
is the European Union’s so-called taxonomy, a rulebook defining which
investments can be labelled climate friendly and designed to guide
investors toward green projects that will help deliver the bloc’s
emissions-cutting targets.
Reuters 7th Oct 2022
Marshall Islands to receive U.N. support over nuclear legacy
https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2022/10/e2a640256da0-marshall-islands-to-receive-un-support-over-nuclear-legacy.html KYODO NEWS -8 Oct 22,
The U.N. Human Rights Council adopted a resolution Friday aimed at assisting the Marshall Islands in its efforts to secure justice for people suffering from the impact of the United States’ former nuclear testing program in its territory.
“We have suffered the cancer of the nuclear legacy for far too long and we need to find a way forward to a better future for our people,” Samuel Lanwi, deputy permanent representative of the Republic of the Marshall Islands in Geneva told the body in an emotional speech.
The United States conducted dozens of nuclear weapons tests in the islands of the Pacific state in the 1940s and ’50s, including the 1954 Castle Bravo test at Bikini Atoll, the biggest U.S. bomb ever detonated.
The text tabled by five Pacific Island states — the Marshall Islands, Fiji, Nauru, Samoa and Vanuatu — was backed by Australia and did not demand reparations.
It called on the U.N. rights chief to submit a report in September 2024 on the challenges to the enjoyment of human rights by the Marshallese people stemming from the nuclear legacy.
The United States as well as other nuclear weapons states such as Britain, India and Pakistan expressed concern about some aspects of the text but did not ask for a vote on the motion. Japan did not speak at the meeting.
The Marshallese people are still struggling with the health and environmental consequences of the nuclear tests, including higher cancer rates. Many people displaced due to the tests are still unable to return home.
A concrete dome on Runit Island containing radioactive waste is of particular concern, especially in relation to rising sea levels as a result of climate change, according to the countries that drafted the resolution.
The Marshall Islands says a settlement reached in 1986 with the United States fell short of addressing the extensive environmental and health damage that resulted from the tests.
The U.S. government asserts the bilateral agreement settled “all claims, past, present and future,” including nuclear compensation.
Observers say some nuclear states fear the initiative for the Marshall Islands could open the door to other countries bringing similar issues to the rights body.
Maryland couple pleads guilty to selling nuclear-related secrets
The couple was charged with selling nuclear information to a foreign country.
abc news, By Aaron Katersky and Luke Barr, September 28, 2022,
Jonathan and Diana Toebbe pleaded guilty for a second time on Tuesday to federal charges that they tried to sell secrets about U.S. submarine nuclear propulsion systems to a foreign country.
The couple originally pleaded guilty in February but a judge threw out the plea agreements last month after deciding the sentences called for were too low……………………………………………….
The new plea agreement appeared to call for a sentence of about 12 years in prison, four times as long as Diana Toebbe’s prior agreement. Magistrate Judge Robert Trumble accepted her plea but noted a different judge would determine whether the new sentencing terms were sufficient.
Jonathan Toebbe, 43, also pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiring to communicate restricted data pursuant to an agreement that calls for a sentence of up to 17 years in prison. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/maryland-couple-pleads-guilty-selling-nuclear-related-secrets/story?id=90581860
NuScale Faces Class Action Lawsuit Brought by Former Employees
https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2022/09/20/nuscale-faces-class-action-lawsuit-lawsuit-brought-by-former-employees/ By Lucas Manfield, September 20, 2022
Former employees of NuScale, a Tigard company that designs nuclear reactors, have filed suit in U.S. District Court in Portland, alleging the company denied them $100 million in proceeds when it went public earlier this year.
NuScale began trading under the ticker symbol SMR after a merger with a Special Purpose Acquisition Company in May. It was valued at nearly $1.9 billion, thanks to its innovative nuclear reactor design, which was recently greenlit by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The company emerged from research at Oregon State University.
The lawsuit is being brought by 13 former employees who allege that the company diluted the value of their stock without their approval using an “unlawful amendment” to an agreement between them and company. It’s similar to a lawsuit filed earlier this year, before NuScale went public, but this version is a class action on behalf of at least 600 shareholders.
They’re asking for $200 million in damages, along with the return of the money lost in the dilution.
After nearly going broke, NuScale’s founders sold a majority of the company to the Texas-based multinational conglomerate Fluor Corporation for $3.5 million in 2011. Fluor is named as a defendant in the lawsuit.
“They’re screwing the employees of the company,” says Timothy DeJong of the Stoll Berne law firm, who represents the former employees, most of whom were once NuScale executives.
NuScale released a statement to WW saying the “claims are without merit” and promised to defend itself in “the appropriate forum.” Fluor did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Watchdog sues nuclear agency over Los Alamos National Laboratory evaluations
https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/watchdog-sues-nuclear-agency-over-los-alamos-national-laboratory-evaluations/article_718dfd52-3550-11ed-b9d9-9329cbe2ad1f.html By Scott Wyland swyland@sfnewmexican.com Sep 17, 2022
A New Mexico watchdog group is suing the federal agency that oversees the nation’s nuclear weapons programs for issuing only summaries of its yearly report cards on national laboratories and withholding what the group contends is vital information on deficiencies.
The lawsuit seeks to compel the National Nuclear Security Administration to post in its public reading room the complete report cards for the eight national laboratories involved in nuclear weapons — ones it has withheld in the past and all future assessments.
Allowing the public to see, in particular, the full report on Los Alamos National Laboratory’s shortcomings is increasingly important as the lab gears up to make 30 plutonium bomb cores a year with an escalating federal budget, Jay Coghlan, executive director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, said in a statement.
The National Nuclear Security Administration’s yearly report cards assess the performances of contracted lab operators and award bonuses to the organizations based on their grades in a process that is not classified, Coghlan argued.
“Nevertheless, NNSA seeks to hide how taxpayers’ money is spent from the public, issuing only terse three-page summaries instead of the full and complete reports,” he said in the statement.
The agency has a policy of not commenting on active litigation.
Coghlan said an example of why the full assessment is necessary is a note on last year’s report for the Los Alamos lab saying it had struggled with some production activities and experienced several challenges carrying out the plutonium mission, and “mission execution was impacted by lapses in safety performance.”
No further explanation was provided in the summary report, he said.
Despite this criticism, the lab’s primary contractor, Triad National Security LLC, received 87.3 percent of the highest possible score, earning it a $22.78 million bonus.
This isn’t the first lawsuit the group has filed over the issue.
Nuclear Watch sued in 2012 to obtain the full reports, prompting the agency to release them every year, Coghlan said.
But in 2019, the agency went back to issuing only summaries and didn’t respond to a request through the Freedom of Information Act for complete reports, he said.
Coghlan contends the agency has become more opaque as it pursues pit production.
“It’s crucial that citizens have full and complete information on how their taxpayer dollars are being spent as the world enters a new and more dangerous nuclear arms race,” he said.
Environment Agency rejects EDF’s appeal against requirement to protect millions of fish from Hinkley C’s huge cooling system
A report threatens to undermine the government’s Sizewell C plan after it sided with opponents who claim a plughole to cool a similar nuclear reactor could kill millions of fish. Boris Johnson promised £700 million for the Sizewell C power station in Suffolk in a speech last week, saying he was “absolutely confident” the project would “get over the line”.
A day later an inspector threw out an appeal by EDF, the French energy company, against the installation of a fish deterrent device relating to Hinkley Point C in Somerset, which EDF is building. Environmentalists claim that without the device, millions of fish could be killed after being sucked into the large cooling system for the new reactor. EDF now has to install the technology or be at risk of paying compensation, which experts say could run into hundreds of millions of pounds.
Campaigners claim the saga is directly relevant to the proposed Sizewell C plant, which is also being developed by EDF and uses the same technology. The Blue Marine Foundation was one of six groups that opposed the plans from EDF. Priyal Bunwaree, the foundation’s lawyer, said: “EDF decided to build the largest engineering project in Europe in the middle of a marine protected area in the Severn estuary and then claimed it would have no adverse effect on the species within it. This was a colossal blunder and they were poorly advised. “The company must now find a technical solution to stop killing so many fish or pay compensation which we estimate could run into hundreds of millions.”
Bunwaree added that similar legal issues could be an obstacle to opening Sizewell C. “The sad
thing about Sizewell is that there has been no proper assessment of damage to the marine environment, so it is likely the same legal issue will arise there,” she said. The Hinkley C cooling system, described as a giant plughole under the sea, will suck in 130,000 litres of water per second. The twin inlet tunnels, stretching two miles out into the Severn estuary, are so big that a double-decker bus could drive through them.
Conservation groups say it will kill up to 250,000 fish a day and must be altered or scrapped. EDF appealed against the Environment Agency’s requirement that it fit an “acoustic fish deterrent” to the cooling system. It argued that it was dangerous for divers to install the fish deterrent device in
the fast waters of the Bristol Channel. An inquiry into the appeal was held last year. The inspector and George Eustice, the environment secretary who endorsed his conclusions, said that before the Hinkley plant can open EDF must fit the technology to it. Experts say it will stop the deaths of an estimated 182 million fish, which will be killed in the Bristol Channel every year for the 60 years the plant is in operation. The inspector’s report said the measures are required by law to protect cod, herring, bass and whiting and migratory species such as Atlantic salmon, allis shad and twaite shad. The report concluded that the magnitude of predicted fish deaths was more likely than EDF’s contention that there would be “no adverse effect” on species or the Bristol Channel. Some experts say the
Sizewell plant would kill 804 million fish a year.
Times 5th Sept 2022
High Court legal challenge to UK government against decision to build Sizewell C nuclear station
A campaign group has issued legal proceedings against the government challenging its decision to allow for the Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station to go ahead against the advice of the planning Examining Authority.
Together Against Sizewell C Limited (TASC) has issued the judicial review proceedings in the High Court following an unsatisfactory response to their pre-action protocol letter sent to Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng at the beginning of August.
The Examining Authority (ExA) recommended refusal of development consent, accepting in part TASC’s evidence that the 3.2 gigawatt power station to be built alongside the 27-year-old Sizewell B nuclear plant should not be built in that Suffolk location where the water supply cannot be guaranteed, and the coastline will not be resilient for the entire lifetime of the project. However, Mr Kwarteng rejected the ExA advice and granted consent on 20 July, 2022.
TASC argue in their legal case that the decision to give the go ahead for Sizewell C is unlawful on a number of grounds, including:
- Failure to give lawfully adequate reasons for departing from the advice of Natural England, who were of the view that the water supply element did form part of the Sizewell C project;
- Failure to consider all alternative solutions to the project, including alternatives to nuclear power, given the purpose of the project was to generate electricity and that could potentially be done in a less harmful way;
- Taking into account a legally irrelevant consideration, namely the contribution the project would make to reducing Green House Gas (GHG) emissions, because the electricity grid is supposed to be carbon neutral by 2035 and without a permanent water supply solution there is no guarantee Sizewell C will contribute significantly to that target;
- Acting irrationally by assuming the site would be clear of nuclear material by 2140 when evidence presented to the examination showed that it would be much later;
- Wrongly concluding that the project’s operational emissions would not have a significant effect on the UK’s ability to meet its climate change obligations, because no such assessment was conducted.
TASC is supported in this action by two other opposition groups in the area, Suffolk Coastal Friends of the Earth and Stop Sizewell C……………………….
Leigh Day solicitor Rowan Smith said:
“Our client is incredibly concerned that the government has ignored the recommendation of the Examining Authority to give the go ahead to Sizewell C. For such a locally and nationally important issue, it was vital that the Secretary of State properly assesses the environmental impacts of the project. However, TASC believes that fundamental legal errors were made, particularly in respect of water, alternatives to nuclear power, local wildlife and climate change. We hope these arguments will now be fully scrutinised by the Court.”
TASC is fundraising towards the costs of the judicial review: https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/save-suffolks-heritage-coast-w/
https://tasizewellc.org.uk/tasc-press-release-on-judicial-revue-1st-september/
Navy officer opposed to nuclear weapons sues UK Ministry of Defence
BBC News 1 Sept 22, A former Royal Navy weapons officer who was removed from a submarine because he opposed nuclear weapons is suing the Ministry of Defence for religious discrimination.
Sub Lt Antonio Jardim, a Christian with joint British-Portuguese nationality, was assigned to HMS Vanguard.
He was given the nickname “Trigger” because of his “reluctance to pull the trigger”, according to tribunal papers.
Mr Jardim was later moved to an onshore role in Portsmouth.
HMS Vanguard is one of the UK’s nuclear deterrent submarines based at Faslane, Scotland.
In a statement ahead of an employment tribunal in Southampton, Mr Jardim said: “I wanted to leave the service after the treatment I received when making my moral views known.
“I believe I have been subjected to a series of connected acts of discriminatory treatment based upon my religious beliefs.”
He added: “Due to the stress from the entire process, along with an unbearable workload and lack of progress with my voluntary withdrawal from training and service complaint, I was sent sick on shore.”
Mr Jardim decided to leave the service in May 2021……………………….
documents also state that on the Trident officers general course in June 2020, having told the course officer about his concerns, he was “removed from the course and told to wait in his cabin”.
Then for the next two weeks he had “interviews and phone calls and he was told not to return to the boat, and his name was written in the quartermaster’s book stating that he was not to be let on board”.
A full hearing will take place on 13 March 2023. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-62744226
Moscow says – US Afraid Inhumane Acts Committed by Azov Terrorists Will Be Made Public
25 Aug 22, WASHINGTON (Sputnik) – Washington is afraid that crimes committed by Ukraine’s Azov* neo-nazi regiment would come to light during the international tribunal for war criminals in Mariupol, the Russian Embassy to the US said.
The Russian embassy noted that the upcoming tribunal against Ukrainian war criminals, which is being prepared by the DPR authorities, would hold Ukrainian Neo-Nazis accountable……………………………..
Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) leader Denis Pushilin earlier said that the suspected war criminals captued by the Donbass militias would face international an tribunal, which is to be held in Mariupol. He noted that the DPR authorities would not delay the trial, adding that the Foreign Ministry is working to invite the international community to take part in the tribunal……………. The politician stated that among suspects are neo-Nazis and some troops who committed atrocities in Donbass over the past 8 years.
He noted that the DPR authorities would not delay the trial, adding that the Foreign Ministry is working to invite the international community to take part in the tribunal.
*Azov is a terrorist organisation banned in Russia https://sputniknews.com/20220825/us-afraid-inhumane-acts-committed-by-azov-terrorists-will-be-made-public-russian-embassy-says-1099967315.html
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange files latest appeal in bid to stop extradition to United States
Julian Assange’s legal team has filed an appeal to Britain’s High Court in an effort to thwart his extradition to the United States to face espionage charges.
Key points:
- The appeal argues that Julian Assange is being prosecuted and punished for his political opinions and for protected speech
- Assange has been in custody since his was arrested in April 2019 and dragged out of the Ecuadorian embassy in London
- He is facing 17 espionage charges and one charge of computer misuse in the United States
British Home Secretary Priti Patel approved the extradition of the WikiLeaks founder in June after he was denied an appeal in the Supreme Court appeal back in March.
A public relations firm representing Assange said in a statement that the respondents to the appeal were Ms Patel and the government of the United States.
Lawyers for Assange will argue that he is being prosecuted and punished for his political opinions and for protected speech, and that the extradition request violates the US-UK Extradition Treaty and international law as it relates to what it calls political offences.
His lawyers will also argue that the US Government “misrepresented the core facts of the case” to the British courts and that the extradition request “constitute an abuse of process”.
“The Perfected Grounds of Appeal contain the arguments on which Julian Assange intends to challenge District Judge Vanessa Baraitser’s decision of 4 January 2021 and introduces significant new evidence that has developed since that ruling,” the statement read.
That January 2021 ruling saw Judge Baraister refuse the US Government’s extradition request on the basis that of Assange’s mental condition and the risk of suicide if he were held in a maximum-security prison.
But Judge Baraister rejected nearly all of the arguments put forward by Assange’s lawyers at the time, including that the charges against him were politically motivated and that he would not receive a fair trial in the US.
In December 2021 the US Government won an appeal against that decision in the UK’s High Court, with Judge Timothy Holroyde finding that the US had given assurances to the UK about Assange’s detention, including about his treatment in the US prison system and that the US would allow him to be transferred to Australia to serve any prison sentence.
Assange’s latest appeal also argues Ms Patel “erred in her decision to approve the extradition order on grounds of specialty” because the extradition request violated the US-UK Extradition Treaty.
US authorities have accused the 51-year-old of conspiring to hack government computers and of violating an espionage law in connection with the release of confidential cables by WikiLeaks in 2010-2011.
Assange is facing up to 175 years in prison over the 17 espionage charges and one charge of computer misuse over the leaks, but the US government has said that a sentence of between three and six years was more likely.
Stella Assange, Assange’s wife, said the pursuit of her husband was “criminal abuse”.
“Since the last ruling, overwhelming evidence has emerged, proving that the United States prosecution against my husband is a criminal abuse,” she said in a statement.
“The High Court judges will now decide whether Julian is given the opportunity to put the case against the United States before open court, and in full, at the appeal.”
Stop the Extradition! #FreeAssangeNOW
Julian Assange Files his Perfected Grounds of Appeal
Crowdfunder, Today, 26 August 2022, Julian Assange is filing his Perfected Grounds of Appeal before the High Court of Justice Administrative Court. The Respondents are the Government of the United States and the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Priti Patel.
The Perfected Grounds of Appeal contain the arguments on which Julian Assange intends to challenge District Judge Vanessa Baraitser’s decision of 4 January 2021, and introduces significant new evidence that has developed since that ruling.
The Perfected Grounds of Appeal concerning the United States Government include the following points:
- Julian Assange is being prosecuted and punished for his political opinions (s.81(a) of the Extradition Act);
- Julian Assange is being prosecuted for protected speech (Article 10)
- The request itself violates the US-UK Extradition Treaty and International law because it is for political offences;
- The US Government has misrepresented the core facts of the case to the British courts; and
- The extradition request and its surrounding circumstances constitute an abuse of process.
The Perfected Grounds of Appeal concerning the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) include arguments that Home Secretary Priti Patel erred in her decision to approve the extradition order on grounds of specialty and because the request itself violates Article 4 of the US-UK Extradition Treaty.
“Since the last ruling, overwhelming evidence has emerged proving that the United States prosecution against my husband is a criminal abuse. The High Court judges will now decide whether Julian is given the opportunity to put the case against the United States before open court, and in full, at the appeal,” said Julian Assange’s wife Stella Assange.
Background:……………………………………… more https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/free-assange/updates/187543#startc—
1 This Month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- September 2026 (184)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 