Seth Rich coverup Part 2, Aaron Rich requested Julian Assange testimony Judge Leon denied, Why are Assange and Ellen Ratner kept silent?, What deep state entities involved in coverup?

Seth Rich coverup Part 2, Aaron Rich requested Julian Assange testimony Judge Leon denied, Why are Assange and Ellen Ratner kept silent?, What deep state entities involved in coverup?

“Why John Brennan, Peter Strzok and DOJ Needed Julian Assange Arrested”…The Conservative Treehouse November 3, 2019

“The FBI clearly has records pertaining to Seth Rich, and it has withheld those
records in bad faith.”…Attorney Ty Clevenger October 11, 2019

“If This Story Gets Out, We Are Screwed”…Wikileaks: Doug Band to John Podesta

What Deep State entities are involved in the Seth Rich coverup and silencing of Julian Assange and Ellen Ratner?

Both Assange and Ratner know who leaked the DNC data to Wikileaks.

Further attempts to get testimony from Assange and Ratner have been made in Joel and Mary Rich v Fox News.

https://citizenwells.com/2020/08/08/seth-rich-coverup-part-1-fox-news-attacked-and-silenced-appeals-judge-quotes-lie-how-we-got-to-assange-ratner-testimony-request-attorney-clevenger-why-would-a-street-robbery-i/

This was not the first attempt to get the testimony of Julian Assange.

From Aaron Rich v Ed Butowsky, et al November 18, 2019.

“PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF A LETTER OF REQUEST

Mr. Rich has to date been unable to serve a subpoena on WikiLeaks or Mr. Assange—or even confirm an address or agent on whom to serve a subpoena on them—as the former does not have a known physical location for service of process and the latter had been under the protection of the Ecuadorian Embassy prior to his more recent incarceration in the United Kingdom. Given Mr. Rich’s repeated failed efforts to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on Mr. Assange through traditional channels, Mr. Rich hereby requests that the Court issue the Letter of Request attached to this motion, which requests judicial assistance from the United Kingdom court system in requiring Mr. Assange to appear for a deposition to respond to a limited set of questions. See Declaration of Meryl C. Governski in Support of Mr. Rich’s Motion for Issuance of a Letter of Request (hereinafter “Governski Decl.”) Ex. 1.1 Plaintiff has already submitted a separate motion requesting permission to serve a subpoena for documents on WikiLeaks via Twitter.”

“Mr. Rich first attempted to serve subpoenas on Mr. Assange in July 2018 by executing letters rogatory pursuant to the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory and Additional Protocol (“IACAP”). Mr. Rich submitted materials to the Department of Justice regarding that request, see Governski Decl. Ex. 13, but on July 19, 2018, the Department of Justice Office of International Judicial Assistance (“OIJA”) rejected those attempts, stating it was “unable to assist” in serving a Rule 45 subpoena on Mr. Assange because “[t]he proper route for obtaining evidence located abroad is pursuant to an international judicial assistance request.” Id. Ex. 14. In April 2019, Mr. Rich’s counsel emailed Barry Pollack, who is Mr. Assange’s criminal defense counsel, to request Mr. Pollack’s assistance in serving a subpoena on Mr. Assange and/or WikiLeaks, see id. Ex. 15, but Mr. Pollack responded that he was “NOT authorized to accept service” of a subpoena to Mr. Assange, and that he does not represent WikiLeaks. Id. Ex. 16 at 2, 4. In August 2019, Mr. Rich’s counsel again contacted Mr. Pollack, explaining: It has been near[l]y three months since this email exchange. While those three months have gone by, my client and his family have been defamed by individuals who continue to claim that Mr. Assange has relevant evidence regarding Seth and Aaron Rich that the Rich family is blocking him from releasing. As you know, that is false – as our letter clearly lays out, Mr. Rich has disclaimed any privilege and asked your client to provide whatever information he or WikiLeaks may have. It is time to end this pointless harassment of the Rich family. Please advise whether you have communicated with your client regarding our message, which as you know contains more than a request to serve a subpoena. If you are unwilling to help, we ask that you direct us promptly to a legal representative of either Mr. Assange or WikiLeaks with whom we may speak so that we may address this injustice.       Id. at 1. To date, counsel for Mr. Rich has received no response.”

“Mr. Rich respectfully requests this Court exercise its authority to request assistance from the UK court system because Mr. Rich has spent more than a year unsuccessfully attempting to serve Mr. Assange, both via the IACAP process while he was living in the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK and via his personal attorney after he was taken into UK custody. Warren, 2016 WL 10749155, at *4, *6 (“It is well-established that courts have the authority to request the assistance of foreign tribunals, through letters rogatory, in order to obtain discovery” from a third-party foreign entity that the party “has been unable to secure” due to an adversary’s unresponsiveness to traditional channels); see also Governski Decl. Ex. 14 (“The proper route for obtaining evidence located abroad is pursuant to an international judicial assistance request.”)

The relief Mr. Rich requests is narrow: assistance in securing a deposition with Mr. Assange to obtain “critical,” “relevant and necessary” testimony in response to a limited set of questions. See Warren, 2016 WL 10749155, at *6 (granting request where it was limited to relevant evidence Plaintiff was unable to secure due to unresponsiveness); Evanston, 2006 WL 1652315, at *2 (permitting deposition of individual in foreign jurisdiction whose role was “critical” and whose deposition was “relevant and necessary”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1781(b)(2); see also Governski Decl. Ex. 1 (Letter of Request). Mr. Rich therefore respectfully requests that this court issue the Letter of Request to permit Mr. Rich to seek testimony critical to his case. See Warren, 2016 WL 10749155, at *4; Evanston, 2006 WL 1652315, at *2. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests issuance of the Letter of Request. Dated: November 8, 2019 ”

Read more:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.194794/gov.uscourts.dcd.194794.91.0.pdf

From the GateWay Pundit February 11, 2020.

“Seth Rich Family AND Defendants REQUEST TESTIMONY From Julian Assange — But Podesta-Linked Judge Richard Leon REFUSES”

“Aaron Rich, the brother of Seth Rich is suing Matt Couch for his reporting on Seth who was murdered in the summer of 2016. Seth worked for the DNC at the time.

Judge Richard J. Leon, is a longtime colleague and Georgetown Law School co-lecturer with John Podesta.  He is also linked to Fusion GPS.

Matt Couch is probably going to file a motion to recuse Leon.

NOW GET THIS…
IN A BIZARRE TWIST, AARON RICH AND THE DEFENDANTS JOINTLY ASKED JUDGE LEON TO HELP ARRANGE THE DEPOSITION OF JULIAN ASSANGE IN ENGLAND. JULIAN ASSANGE IS THE MAIN SOURCE WHO CAN TESTIFY HOW WIKILEAKS OBTAINED THE PODESTA EMAILS DURING THE 2016 ELECTION. BUT IN A WEIRD TWIST, ACCORDING TO OUR SOURCES, JUDGE LEON ARBITRARILY REFUSED THE REQUEST — EVEN THOUGH BOTH PARTIES REQUESTED THE DEPOSITION.

This is unheard of!  It is unique in a situation where ALL PARTIES  agree that they need the testimony of a particular witness, but the judge blocks it WITHOUT EXPLANATION!”

Read more:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/02/must-read-seth-rich-family-and-defendants-request-testimony-from-julian-assange-but-podesta-linked-judge-richard-leon-refuses/

There is part of the answer.

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net