US pro-Palestine activist James “Fergie” Cox Chambers emphasized that he never funded any terrorist organization at his extradition hearing before Spain’s National Court on Friday, November 13. He said that all the funds he had dedicated to the Palestinian cause went to Palestinian student associations, health organizations, and organizations for Palestinian prisoners.Questioned by his own defense team, he stressed that the foundation he created had always followed a rigorous vetting process to ensure that the funds—reportedly a total of €7.2 million—did not go to entities banned or sanctioned by the US.At the hearing, where Chambers emphasized that he opposed extradition to the US, his defense accused US authorities of procedural bad faith. It presented an expert financial report to support the legality of 10 transfers of Chambers’s own funds to his accounts in Tunisia when he moved there. Those transfers have been questioned as funding for organizations associated with Hamas.Regarding the allegations for which the US wants his extradition—including that he took part in protests and encouraged them as a coordinator—Chambers explained that he participated in a series of civil disobedience protests against the Israeli weapons manufacturer Elbit Sistems, involved in the genocide of Palestinians.He explained that his actions consisted of locking himself to the company’s door with a bicycle lock to block access and, separately, demonstrating alongside about 1,000 people to block access to another of its premises.The activist explained that Palestine Action, the organization behind those protests, was not subject to any US sanctions or bans. He also said that he paid bail for people who took part in the pro-Palestine protests because high bail amounts are imposed on demonstrators in his country as a method of repression.“I’ve been doing it for a long time,” he said, adding that he had also paid bail for demonstrators detained at protests following George Floyd’s assassination by Minneapolis police agents in 2020.His defense argued that those acts did not constitute terrorism-related offenses. “The public prosecutor cannot create a terrorist group that even the US does not labels as such,” his defense said, adding that the charges of protests and conspiracy to protest therefore do not meet the minimum sentencing threshold required for extradition.A clear political dimensionChambers’s defense also alleged several irregularities in the extradition process, including the absence of a formal grand jury indictment specifying the charges against him, a search of his home without notifying his lawyer, and the sending of his phone to the US. The defense maintained that the case had “a clear political dimension.”Prosecutor Juan Hernández Villalba reaffirmed his report stating that the requirements for extradition had been met. He told the judges that although the defense had challenged the alleged acts one by one, it had fragmented and reinterpreted them in isolation.“But what matters is the overall assessment,” the prosecutor said. He added that the US request was not based on political ideology but on acts that allegedly caused material damage to a particular company. He maintained that the acts under review revealed “a stable structure intended for illicit actions,” accompanied by movements of funds intended to support terrorist associations.In his earlier report, the prosecutor said that the acts alleged against Chambers in the US corresponded to the Spanish Criminal Code offenses of financing terrorism, terrorist property damage and public disorder, and membership in a terrorist group.The public prosecutor’s office said the requirements for Chambers’s extradition had been met: the alleged acts are crimes in both countries, the offenses carry sentences of more than one year in prison, the statute of limitations has not expired, and the offense for which extradition is sought “is not political or military in nature.”In its account of the allegations underlying the US request, the report noted that after leaving the US, Chambers made around 10 transfers between March 2024 and April 2025 from Bank of America to Banque Internationale Arabe de Tunisie in Tunisia.The prosecutor’s report stated that Chambers, who has a family fortune, “intended to use those funds to promote … violent actions that would benefit the terrorist group Hamas.” It also maintained that his public statements showed that he was aware of the risk of using his money to provide material support to Hamas, even through supposed charitable organizations.In his final remarks, Chambers said that he did not understand why he had been held in pretrial detention in Spain over the US request. “This has put me in a very unhappy family situation. I recently missed my grandmother’s funeral. My young son constantly asks about me. My wife is due to give birth in March , and I don’t know if I will be able to be there for her. And all of this because I have raised my voice, having more money than those who have spoken out against this ignominy,” he said, in reference to the genocide perpetrated by “Israel” in Palestine. Thus he concluded his speech before the court, visibly emotional before returning to prison. Some of his family members were seated in the public gallery.The court then concluded the hearing, and the visibly emotional activist addressed his family, who had attended the public proceedings.Several people participate in a rally in support of Chambers, in front of the National Court, on Friday, November 13. Photo: Borja Sanchez-Trillo/EFE.After the court issues its ruling, if it agrees with the prosecutor and approves extradition, Chambers’s defense could still file a motion for reconsideration if it alleges a violation of fundamental rights, or seek to have the proceedings annulled before the National Court.Once those avenues are exhausted, it could appeal to Spain’s Constitutional Court for the protection of fundamental rights, although that process would not suspend his extradition.Separately, Spanish authorities are considering his asylum application, which, if granted, would halt the extradition. The Spanish government, which has the final say, could also decide not to surrender him to the US.Increasing public attentionEl Pais reported that Friday’s hearing generated considerable interest. A group of supporters gathered outside the National Court, holding a banner that read “Free Fergie.” “Defending Palestine is not a crime,” read another. “No to extradition,” proclaimed another sign carried by one of the protesters. Furthermore, the courtroom where the hearing was held, usually deserted for the proceedings, was filled with members of the public and foreign lawyers.Spanish Public Prosecutor Backs US Demand To Extradite Pro-Palestine Philanthropist Fergie ChambersThe defense took the floor at the very start of the extradition hearing to present, among other material, two expert reports to respond to the United States’ accusation against Chambers. On one hand, the activist’s lawyers presented documentation to demonstrate the legality of the seven million euro transfer under suspicion—which Washington believes was intended to finance illicit activities. “That money goes to a Tunisian account belonging to Fergie, and from there it will finance a football club,” one of his lawyers emphasized, explaining how the other report “criticizes” the translation of the demand letter sent by the US authorities. “Certain words have been changed to aggravate the meaning, to make it more focused on violence,” they claimed.The Spanish National Police arrested Chambers in Ibiza on July 10, following a US extradition request over his participation in protests against Israeli weapons company Elbit Systems, which is complicit in Israel’s genocide in Gaza, among other alleged offenses.Chambers has now been deprived of his liberty for more than four months, while those actually charged over the acts of civil disobedience against Elbit served only 30 days of their sentences. (ElDiario.es) with Orinoco Tribune contentTranslation: Orinoco TribuneOT/JRE/SC