A few days back, an American of Sri Lankan origin stated in regards to the American legal actions initiated against Dual Citizen Gotabhaya Rajapaksa:
[Renouncing US citizenship means nothing, though an opportunistic and ungrateful act by Gota. Los Angeles Sri Lankans ought to kick him for such an unpatriotic act - and issue a public statement. But it will not save Gota from the long arm of the law, of US extra-territorial reach.
The latest has been El Capo, the notorious drug lord and murderer, now facing death sentence in an American Court. (America is the real ICC, with apologies to the late Justice Christie Weeramantry.!)
America today has legal overreach, just as it has overreach to dominate global finance. It can turn on the screws on just about anybody on the planet……]
If the American system did prosecute Mr Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, that would seem legitimate to the likes of me – meaning those who practice the law but are not technical experts in law. In true democracy the gap between the two would be very slim.
As per Concurrents.org’s article ‘Unsealed affidavit demonstrates US seeking to prosecute Assange for his journalism’:
[An affidavit unsealed by US prosecutors on Monday has underscored the unlawful character of the Trump administration’s request that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange be extradited to the US in the wake of his illegal expulsion from Ecuador’s London embassy and arrest by the British police last Thursday.
The affidavit was made by Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) special agent Megan Brown on December 21, 2017, in support of two charges which had been secretly filed against Assange, under her name.
The charges accuse Assange of participating in a “conspiracy” with whistleblower Chelsea Manning to gain unauthorised access to a US government computer.]
To my simple mind, an Affidavit is our confession in the consciousness that the Lord or our conscience is the highest authority before whom we state our belief / truth about what happened – with or without how we interpreted what happened. An American making an affidavit about Australian is limited to what happened observations and any statements beyond that are not admissible in an American Court of Law. The boundaries of jurisdiction are determined by the commonness of our belief.
In a subjective system our wisdom is shared through common belief. The deeper we believe the lesser the objectively measurable evidence needed. An Affidavit by an American against an Australian, could be valid only in a higher Common Court such as the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court.
The highest form of our faith or our conscience is considered to be the Judge of the self-governing person. An affidavit that is accepted by a system therefore – needs to be tested on that basis. Without common belief – one does not have the power to access another’s mind and therefore make statements as to why the other person did what s/he did. In terms of ‘what happened’ – the interpretations would vary as per the depth of contribution to commonness – for example in International law.
Most Australian judges who heard my complaints of Racial Discrimination – demonstrated lack of knowledge of ICERD - the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination – by the UN. They took no notice of my Affidavits and dismissed the complaints as frivolous and vexatious. Eventually evidence emerged through the NSW Police that I was classified as ‘Sri Lankan’ despite my claim that I was Australian by law. This meant that in their minds I was Sri Lankan. If there had been no evidence of denial of benefits and / or lawful rights – this would have been neutral. But classifying me as Sri Lankan was an Affidavit evidence by the authorities that they were discriminating on the basis of race. Differentiation while taking authority over a person who claims to have ‘lost’ benefits, opportunities and/or rights amounts to racism which in this instance is unlawful in Australia. It is not in Sri Lanka as per my knowledge.
As per Wikipedia report about Australia’s stand:
[In Australia, the government and the Australian Federal Police have not stated what Australian laws may have been violated by WikiLeaks, but then Prime Minister Julia Gillard has stated that the foundation of WikiLeaks and the stealing of classified documents from the United States administration is illegal in foreign countries. Gillard later clarified her statement as referring to "the original theft of the material by a junior U.S. serviceman rather than any action by Mr Assange." ]
When I brought defamation charges against my Australian relatives in law who through their lawyers kept referring to me and my children as outsiders because this is my second marriage, the NSW Courts stated that they – the courts did not have jurisdiction because the actual public statements were made in Sri Lanka. But evidence of the ruling by the Court of Natural Justice evolved in many ways to confirm that my complaint was heard in the Court of Universal Justice where through Truth anyone and everyone derives the comfort of justice they have earned. That to my mind, is what self-governance is all about. It confirms the individual’s Sovereignty.
Unless American Megan Brown – special agent - Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) was personally hurt as an individual there is no jurisdiction for her voice to be heard through Affidavit evidence. To be valid in the court of Natural Justice – the lady ought to have invested in the common global law in the issue of information protection.
If America is treated as the ICJ – then only god can save Julian Assange or any other Australian acting as per her/his conscience when exposing American wrongs.