Department of Justice Accidentally Leaks Expected Charges Against Julian Assange

In one of the most bizarre story-lines you will ever come across, 100% ironically, the United States Department of Justice has just “leaked” a partial list of expected charges to be filed against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange once his asylum inside the Ecuadorian Embassy comes to an end. The accident came in conjunction with the release of a now once again already sealed document Thursday, November 15th 2018, outlining the DoJ’s upcoming court case against Seitu Sulayman Kokayi – whom will soon be facing charges of sexual misconduct. More specifically, Kokayi will be charged with “violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2242(b).

However, pages 2 and 3 of the 3 page document shift from Kokayi’s case to begin outlining charges expected to be filed against Julian Assange. Given their mistake, the document featured below has already been “re-sealed/redacted.” But in statements to The Daily Beast, the DoJ admits to their mistake, explaining how its suspected that someone working in their offices made a clerical filing error, or accidentally copy and pasted portions of Assanges case onto Kokayi’s – because the two men will essentially be facing at least some similar charges.

As the document contained below outlines:

3. 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.


4. The Court has the inherent power to seal charging documents. United States
V. Wuagneux. 683 F.2d 1343, 1351 (11″‘ Cir. 1982); State of Arizona v. Mavpennv. 672 F.2d 761, 765 (9″^ Cir. 1982); Times Mirror Comnanv v. United States. 873 F.2d 1210 (9″‘ Cir. 1989); see also Shea v. Gabriel. 520 F.2d 879 (U* Cir. 1975); United States v. Hubbard. 650 F.2d 293 (D.C. Cir. 1980); In re Brauehton. 520 F.2d 765, 766 (9″^ Cir. 1975). “The trial court has supervisory power over its own records and may, in its discretion, seal documents if the public’s right of access is outweighed by competing interests.” In re Knight Pub. Co.. 743 F.2d 231, 235 (4″^ Cir. 1984). Sealing charging documents is appropriate where there is a substantial probability that the release of the sealed documents would compromise the government’s ongoing investigation severely. S^ e^g. In re Search Warrant for Secretarial Area Outside Office of Gunn. 855 F.2d 569, 574 (8″^ Cir. 1988); Matter of Eve Care Phvsicians of America. 100 F.3d 514, 518 (7″‘ Cir. 1996); Matter of Flower Aviation of Kansas. Inc.. 789 F.Supp. 366 (D. Kan. 1992).

UNDER SEAL (Local Rule 49(B)(3))

5. 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.

6. Upon occurrence of the event specified in paragraph 8, pursuant to Local Rule 49(B)(3), the sealed materials will be automatically unsealed and handled as such. WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests that the criminal complaint, the supporting affidavit, and the arrest warrant in this matter, as well as this Motion to Seal and proposed Order, be sealed until further order of the Court.

Full Accidental Leak from DOJ – See pg’s 2 & 3:

[pdf-embedder url=””%5D

Published by

Brian Dunn

Writer, Researcher Owner: Rogue Media Labs | Rogue Security Labs (929)-319-2570 BrianDunn@RogueSecurityLabs.Ltd

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.