The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Extradition without evidence from the UK / US

Extradition without evidence from the UK / US

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All
I am Brian Howes, My wife and I are being extradited to the US yet no evidence will ever be seen in the UK. We have spent 214 days on Illegal remand in Scotland while our children suffered. We sold chemicals Legal in the UK but the US long arm laws are extending US law.

Below is an extract from a newspaper story in Scotland and at the bottom of the page is a link to the full article.

At Brian’s final appeal hearing at Edinburgh High Court on Tuesday he will discover if he will be remanded to be sent to the US for a trial that could mean he never sees his five children – including Cassidy, just three weeks old – again. His wife could follow – despite the fact that the couple have not broken any UK laws.

Brian, 45, said he was feeling “very stressed, disappointed and worried about my children and my wife”.

He added: “I have been told it is the final hearing. My QC has told me not to drive my car there. I believe they will make sure I am remanded.” If Brian loses his appeal, his wife would also be sent to the US after her hearing and their children – Leela, three, Ellie, six, Bethaney, 10, Denny, 11, and Cassidy – could be taken into care before their parents even face a trial.

If the couple, from Bo’ness, West Lothian, are found guilty, they would be sent to the Maricopa County Jail, housed in tents in the Arizona desert, where inmates are forced to work in chain gangs in 40C heat.

Brian said: “We’ve been through hell just thinking about it. My wife won’t survive the trip. I’m devastated for the children. I can’t think of a much bigger travesty of justice.”

A psychologist has said Kerry-Ann, 31, is likely to commit suicide if imprisoned again. Her husband, who is under a curfew and must report to his local police station twice a day, also says he will have nothing to live for if he loses his appeal.

http://extradition.org.uk/2009/05/26/judgement-day-for-couple-who-face-us-jail-for-selling-chemicals-online/
Posted by BrianHowes, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 4:03:58 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Brian.

Sorry to hear about your situation. One thing I've been wondering about since I first heard about it is whether or not you're aware that the chemicals you sold are used as precursor chemicals in the manufacture of methamphetamine in the USA?

Also, have you sold any to Australian customers?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 6:49:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes we had many Australian customers, the US say in our indictment at least one meth lab was found in Australia. My wife and I have made a request to the Australian Embassy in London to be extradited to Australia in order for evidence to be shown in our case and to get a fair hearing but we have not had a reply.
Posted by BrianHowes, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 8:09:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the reply, Brian. However, given the grief that your products have undoubtedly caused in both Australia and the USA, I think that your actions in selling your chemicals to criminals in those jurisdictions are unconscionable.

I think you should face the music. What makes you think you can't get a fair trial in the US?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 9:26:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I need to post again as I never answered the last question in full, We did not know that Meth labs had been buying our chemicals for anything other than the what they were sold for. Iodine was for medical use and Red Phosphorus was for fireworks and has many uses.

I hope that has answered the question.

I feel I should also say I was working with anti Terrorism organisations in the UK and the company was trading in a completely legal manor. The only Illegal things going on was the raids on our property and much more for another time if there is any left.
Posted by BrianHowes, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 9:32:51 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello Mr Morgan,

We did not knowingly sell these chemicals to drug makers.

In the US there is about a 97% plea bargain rate.
US plea bargain rates 2008 http://wp.me/paXuz-os

No Bail.

3 Years on remand while our 5 kids go into care before we even get a trial and probably adopted.

The presumption of innocence has been removed in extradition cases as just fighting extradition and before fighting it the US brand you a Fugitive in all court papers.

Prosecutor Threats: http://bit.ly/252DLr

The US do not need evidence to extradite and they are using my wife as a bargaining tool.

Even the High Court has said we had a Legal Business in the UK.

I would hope that Australia if they have found Meth Labs as in our US indictment and other documents say, The government of Australia would want to extradite my wife and I in order to punish us for such a terrible crime.

The difference is that Australia would need the evidence the US say they have and surely have shared during the joint investigation.

We would be confident that Australia would want to treat all crimes against it's country very seriously.

We fear the US and it's corruption we only expect justice from Australia
Posted by BrianHowes, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 9:52:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From what I can make out you sold products legal in the UK and maybe Australia but not legal in the US. I presume you sold them to US residents/citizens who then went on to use them for nefarious purposes. Hence why US authorities want to speak to you.

It sounds sad that your children might be separated from their parents and that you may suffer the very suss US legal system but I dont see what could be done by anyone here. Dont do international business unless you know the laws of the places you deal in.

Could the same thing happen if say an American gun manufacturer sold illegal weapons into Australia? Would/could we extradite them to face Aussie justice?
Posted by mikk, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 11:24:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brian Howes has given links above and on Twitter.

Refreshing my Twitter tab in my browser I have just got the message 'Server not found. Firefox can't find the server at twitter.com', I will reproduce here some content of an email from US justice officials relating to Brian Howes' sought-for extradition to the US.

<<From: McCormick, Glenn (USAAZ) [mailto:Glenn.McCormick@usdoj.gov]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 9:34 AM
To: pag
Subject: RE: Howes. Brian

Pat:

1. I have been told that the children are being cared for by family members, a grandparent or grandparents as I recall. There is more to the childcare story but it is somewhat vague in my mind and I do not want to misstate it.

2. As you may be aware your client has been publishing everything he can get his hands on regarding this case in an effort to build some sort of underground or public support. We are simply not interested in your client “spinning” any further information about his case in a slanted or outright untruthful way. He should also be aware that through his internet antics he is building a wealth of data we can use to impeach him and possibly any defense you may put forth on his behalf. Among other reasons, in an effort to minimize the “drama” your client is trying to churn up I will not provide discovery until after he is arraigned pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

.

.

.

Glenn B. McCormick

Deputy Chief, OCDETF

Dist. of Arizona

(602)514-7669

From: pag [mailto:pattigitre@patriciagitre.com]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 7:19 AM
To: McCormick, Glenn (USAAZ)
Cc: Nick.Green@dhs.gov; Pfister, Mary Beth (USANAC); ‘Patricia A Gitre’
Subject: RE: Howes. Brian >>

Brian Howes held in custody on remand in the UK for 214 days WITHOUT CHARGE!

Currently under house arrest not knowing when, whether, or how his case may be resolved.

And he has the HIDE to want to actually defend himself! I mean what's the world coming to?

Couldn't be innocent, could he?
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 11:28:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem With cases like this is that we don't know all the facts nor the circumstances.
The articles in question are big on emotive imagery but light on facts.

Perhaps the key is in the the following highlighted part of exert.

"The couple ran a legal chemical business — Lab Chemicals International — *UNTIL TARGETED BY UNDERCOVER AGENTS POSING AS BUYERS* after a tip-off by one American citizen.

They accused Brian and Kerry of selling iodine and red phosphorus in the knowledge they would be used to manufacture the highly addictive drug."

If in fact there was a sting then the crime has indeed been committed against US law and therefore they do have a legitimate extradition claim.

While I has considerable misgivings as to why the UK government aren't defending their citizens more rigorously? I suspect the evidence must be sufficient in the UK terms to warrant the process.
I wonder if the DEA are suppressing specific detail because it may jeopardise on going associated investigations etc. and the UK are aware of this. The other option that comes to mind is that there is diplomatic issues at stake i.e. continued sharing of intel. With the states.

Sadly I think it has nothing to do with Australia as we aren't the complainant.
Posted by examinator, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 12:17:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

I'm with Forest. It's a joke.

'Brian Howes held in custody on remand in the UK for 214 days WITHOUT CHARGE!'

'to minimise[sic] the “drama” your client is trying to churn up...'

Oh he's such a drama queen. Stop creating drama man. And yes I've even brought out the sic to highlight how much I hate US spelling.

'The couple ran a legal chemical business — Lab Chemicals International — *UNTIL TARGETED BY UNDERCOVER AGENTS POSING AS BUYERS*'

That's the definition of entrapment pontificator. They ran a *legal* busininess *UNTIL* they were entrapped. It'd be a sting if they were already running an illegal business, but they weren't.

'Sadly I think it has nothing to do with Australia as we aren't the complainant.'

Ohwwwwww yeeeeeah! Close your eyes 'good man' and do nothing. What happened to the worlds most altruistic counsellor.

mikk,

'Could the same thing happen if say an American gun manufacturer sold illegal weapons into Australia? Would/could we extradite them to face Aussie justice?'
Nope. Unless Johnny was still PM. He used to dine at the Ranch... Man he was so much more influential. That's why David Hicks never got freed. Johnny knew he was guilty as hell.

In the end though the biggest 'crime' here is the censorship of Forest. That poor kid doesn't deserve to be mixed up in all this. You keep fighting Forest.
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 1:55:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Merci, Michel.

Its a real shame examinator came to the conclusion he did, because wittingly or unwittingly, he may have revealed the underlying falsity of the whole US extradition attempt. To think that he may have foregone his share of the glory that may well be coming OLO's way, just for a non-sequitur like that.

examinator says:

"I suspect the evidence must be sufficient in the UK terms
to warrant the process. I wonder if the DEA are suppressing
specific detail because it may jeopardise on going associated
investigations etc. and the UK are aware of this."

With the Howes' running an entirely lawful business in the UK (which they were), and the US authorities claiming to have mounted a 'sting' operation and thus been gathering 'evidence', was there to have been any ongoing drug enforcement operation that could have been prejudiced by the Howes' being given an extradition hearing, all the US authorities had to do was leave the Howes' unmolested under surveillance and continue to gather yet more evidence and catch even more US crystal meth cooks as the sales, OF WHICH THEY CLAIM TO HAVE BEEN AWARE, continued, for there was no pressing need to have the Howes' arrested as they were breaking no UK laws.

However, to suggest that the UK may, or even have needed, to be aware of any ongoing US drug enforcement operation that may have stood to be prejudiced by any hearing, reveals only the extent of ignorance as to the fact that the provisions of the Extradition Act 2003 (UK) are such as to provide that upon any US request for extradition THERE SHALL BE NO HEARING in the UK.

As I understand it, the provisions of the Extradition Act were brought into law by the British government by-passing the Parliament and incorporating its provisions into the UK-US TREATY. Its a one way street, all the US' way.

Unless, of course, the US authorities intended to extort information from the Howes' once they had them in the US. Are we looking at a prospective torture scenario here?
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 4:07:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brian we well at least me first heard about you from a well respected member here Forrest .
I share CJ Morgans concerns, if you knew it was for drug use, cop it sweet, an Australian term.
Translates about do the crime do the time.
However if , and I have no reason to doubt you, it was just trade you are badly done by.
America has some strange ways of enforcing the law, that red neck sheriff and his camp are evidence.
I will watch with interest and if convinced you are guilty of nothing join those complaining of your treatment.
Drugs like that made with these products are nearly as low as any one can get, the world would be better without those who make them.
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 5:02:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Drugs like that made with these products are nearly as low as any one can get, the world would be better without those who make them.'

Come now lets not get hasty.
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 5:06:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find that this case has quite a few questions
that need answering.

Firstly, if you're going to go into business selling
drugs online - wouldn't you bother to investigate
as to whom you were legally allowed to sell?
Especially regarding overseas markets.
And, wouldn't you also find out - how the drugs
you're supplying can be used?
To me that would seem a rather basic thing to do.
If you're selling certain ingredients that could go
into making WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction), you
then can't claim innocence that you sold people those
ingredients - but you didn't know what they were going
to do with them.

Secondly, drugs are a serious problem worldwide -
but especially in the US - and would a US court really bother
to prosecute petty offenders? This would consume an
enormous amount of police effort, it would clog the jails
and courts, at a time when their system can scarcely
cope with more serious offenders. They wouldn't do it,
unless the illegal nature of these pursuits they felt
stimulated the activities of organized crime,
which, ever since Prohibition,
has depended for their exitence on
supplying illegal goods and service, such as narcotics,
to others who are willing to pay for them.
Drugs - with organized crime is now a $100-billion-a-year
enterprise, comparable in size to the American steel industry.

Extradition without evidence from the UK/US?
Someone obviously thinks they have a case - otherwise
as another poster asked - why isn't the UK Government
doing more to defend their citizens? And again, why
is the US targeting these "innocent" people?
To what end?

My deep regret is that there are children involved.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 8:08:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm with Belly on this one.

While Brian and his family are clearly in a horrible legal situation, I have no doubt that there's much more to the story than is possible to ascertain from the links provided. It's obviously not that there's no evidence - rather that Brian's defence hasn't been provided with it for the purpose of fighting his extradition.

I have enough faith in the rule of law and in agreements between civilised countries like the UK and USA to presume that the American authorities would have to have provided their British counterparts with sufficient evidence for them to consider his extradition. Further, it wouldn't be that he's not facing charges - rather that those charges are to be heard before an American court of law.

Brian obviously has a strong defence in that it is legal to sell the precursor chemicals in the UK. However, if he chooses to sell his wares into markets where they are illegal, then I'm still inclined to the view that he should face a court there. I must say that I'm sceptical about his claims that he was unaware of the reprehensible uses to which they would be put.

I will also follow the case with interest, but I'm disinclined to get excited about any supposed procedural injustice towards Brian until I know more about the detail of the case. Having said that, I agree that it's very sad that kids are going to be hurt - as they so very often are when drug kingpins are finally brought to account.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 10:14:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I should add that I'm of the view that all 'recreational' drugs should be legal, but under strict regulation. That would remove the motivation for illegal manufacture of drugs and therefore of the supply of requisite chemicals illicitly. If, for example, methamphetamine was available under prescription, then the entire market for the clandestine labs where they are manufactured would disappear - and people like Brian wouldn't find themselves in his current predicament.

However, that's not the case now - so, as Belly said, if you can't do the time you shouldn't do the crime.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 10:40:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houelly older men like me, [don't feel old] once have been young men.
No angel in my youth I took a better quality of drugs to stay awake and drive trucks.
And forever know the damage they can do.
Having fun, yes that is what even now drivers tell each other, or giving your self a clout, taking drugs that you are not quite sure of, is not funny.
And for every one who can handle them ten can not.
I want to highlight these products, look at them again, are used for far more than drug manufacture.
And I remain convinced those who sell drugs like this are lessor humans.
Cash, the need for it, is killing kids and adults every day.
At least I can contribute as one who once, a long time ago stopped having fun, stopped having a clout, and never killed anyone while out of it.
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 4:08:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don’t really know where to start: Mr Morgan you have made several points some of which are already covered but I will cover all your comments again.

Selling legitimate and completely legal chemical worldwide from any country that they are legal is not a criminal offence.

A comparison would be the USA selling guns to the UK which they do and are the cause of many deaths and other related crime, there is never a mention of the gun seller in the USA being indicted to face trial in the UK. The USA also sells many other items to the UK that is not legal here but there is no sniff of an extradition.

Mikk To answer your question about international trade how is it reasonable to know every law in every country? The US citizen does not check that guns are legal or not before shipping to the UK, Here in Scotland 40,000 of your dollars of guns off all kinds was found with a person about to do a US style college massacre but is the seller being perused? No!

Examinator you presume that all laws are fair, you also presume evidence is given to the UK government but not to my wife and I.

It is clear from the US / UK treaty that no evidence is needed which means you are starting from the point of guilty as in our case we were remanded without evidence and that is not disputed.

I spoke to a DEA agent on the case who told me that they were concerned about the chemicals coming into the USA not any conspiracy.
Continued!
Posted by BrianHowes, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 5:36:16 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Examinator do you really condone unlimited remand when fighting extradition which is everybody’s right? Do you also then presume all people facing selling chemicals to the USA to be guilty before trial?

And last would you accept the loss of 5 children to care and the loss of your wife, home, business and a further 3 years on remand in the Arizona desert before trial knowing you do not have any chance of winning because once US Marshals have you on US soil the offence for selling the chemicals is 20 years per sale, so would you accept that for an Australian citizen?

Belly we sold up to 60 different chemicals the 2 chemicals in question are not even the main ingredients for drugs as the drug meth needs 11 different chemicals all available in the USA in one form or another.

The chemicals are not illegal in the USA but are supposed to be registered. The legal advice we were given was it was the responsibility of the customer to make sure our chemicals did not get misused.

Foxy we never sold drugs online we sold Legal chemicals for amateur pyrotechnic use still legal in most of the world. With a 97% plea bargain rate and a wife as a bargaining tool I think they know they have a case but it is a case of what the US wants the US gets.

Innocent until proven guilty has surely vanished if allowed to be imprisoned and lives destroyed before a trial has ever been started.

CJ Morgan how do we have a defence when the chemicals carry 20 years for selling them in the USA? Once on US soil the crime that is not a crime here in the UK can’t be won because we say well it’s legal in the UK.

I am not very good with words and I am also aware of only being able to post 4 times in 24 hours so if the reply takes this long it is because I probably do not have any posts left
Posted by BrianHowes, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 8:27:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here's a link to the indictment that Brian Howes faces if extradited to the USA:

http://tiny.cc/jzxYg

I suggest that people read it before feeling too much sympathy for Mr Howes. It's pretty damning. Perhaps Mr Howes and his partner should have thought about their children's welfare before selling precursor chemicals in "discreet" packaging to criminals in the USA and elsewhere.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 8:33:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am irritated by this topic, not that I am without sympathy Brian, if what you present is true, however I am in complete agreement with CJ Morgan's and Belly's views for the reasons they have stated.

I also understand your fear of being extradited to Arizona (having lived there) - being a Republican state it is zero tolerance on illegal drugs.

On the topic of Miscarriage of Justice I am far more outraged by an appalling situation that has occurred to a young couple right here on Australian shores (so much for believing that Australian justice is somehow fairer).

"For the first time in more than two decades a Queensland couple will appear in court on abortion charges.

Tegan Leach, 19, was charged with procuring a miscarriage after police searched her Cairns home in February on an unrelated matter.

Her 21-year-old partner, Sergie Brennan, was charged with supplying drugs or instruments to procure an abortion.

The prosecution had relied mostly on statements and interviews with the couple after their home was searched in February.

During the search, police found two blister packets that were empty and two empty sachets that had contained powder.

Those items were labelled as mifolian and misoprostol, which are both known abortion drugs, but both those sets of packets were empty so the items could not be tested.

In police interviews and statements the couple admitted Brennan had arranged for his sister to send two sets of drugs from Russia."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/11/2683030.htm

Abortion is supposed to be legal in Australia, however only if administered by a qualified medic. While abortifacient drugs are available by prescription, procuring such without prescription is not what the couple have been charged with - they have been charged with terminating an unwanted pregnancy.

I have no idea why Forrest is so gung ho about your case and not a local issue, whose miscarriage of justice is far more apparent than the questions surrounding your case.
Posted by Fractelle, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 9:15:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan: first you seem to assume an allegations in an indictment from Arizona is an evidential document but far from it as evidence is not supplied to a US grand jury just hearsay!

CJ Morgan you also seem to be dragged in to the false information in the indictment as if all US indictments are truthful when they only represent what the prosecutor told the Grand jury.

CJ Morgan how is packaging discreet if it includes a return address, VAT # phone number and all contact details.

CJ Morgan you are some sort of administrator as you do not only have 4 posts per 24 hours, but you seem to have from what you have said so far as taking in all information you see in our indictments and accept it as true.

That assumption would be in line with the USA having a perfect justice system when most of us know that the US are so powerful that they are able to torture people and get away with it, they also have several detention camps in parts of the world that I can not mention that torture people.

CJ Morgan Do you think that without evidence shown from the USA an Australian should be extradited to the USA as in our case or do you really consider an indictment that has been put to a grand jury without any evidence to be enough to destroy Australian lives like ours. Yes Morgan is there a difference to the justice that Australians get more than UK citizens deserve?

CJ Morgan I wonder if one or more of your family members had been dragged out of bed arrested on a US warrant without any evidence, refused bail and only given bail after a 30 day hunger strike on the 214th day of Illegal remand. Would you accept that as part of the US extradition treaty with Australia? Also Mr Morgan are you so blind as not to see the UK / US treaty is wrong? Have you read it? Do you understand it? And are you biased in some way? Goodnight.
Posted by BrianHowes, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 10:22:47 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle says:

"I have no idea why Forrest is so gung ho
about your case and not a local issue,
whose miscarriage of justice is far more
apparent than the questions surrounding your case."

The answer, Fractelle, is simply that I did not know beforehand about the entirely separate issue upon which you have now posted.

There is also an assertion embedded within your quote that Brian Howes' case is not a local issue. That assertion is wrong.

The Howes case is a local issue because an Australian has already recently been extradited to the US without there having been any extradition hearing first, in Australia, before that extradition took place. As will, either shortly or at length, become plain, that extradition without hearing of Hew Griffiths to the US was to do with matters related to internet technology, technological protective measures, and intellectual property rights maintainance, issues that it will be shown also lie behind the likely 'fitting-up' of Brian Howes with drug-related indictments by US authorities.

The Howes' case is also a local issue because they are also alleged by the US authorities to have knowingly supplied methamphetamine precursor chemicals to criminals in Australia, in connection with which allegations the Howes', strangely, themselves have requested extradition to Australia for trial.

I am 'gung ho' about these local issues because they may well, left unchallenged, come to threaten the workability of this very means of truly 'free press' communication, as, for example, OLO itself.

I did seek to have your post taken down and re-established as a topic in its own right. GrahamY's view was that it was, when eventually it made its point, sufficiently on topic to leave up here until I had responded. He is agreeable to so establish it in its own right if you wish to discuss that with him via 'feedback'.

So far, this thread on OLO is as close to a proper hearing the Howes' have had in the three years they have been held without even having been charged. Your excellent new topic threatens to divert this thread.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 11:39:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Forrest your points are noted and I will give them consideration and research - am still not convinced that the Howes situation is relevant to the Australian system of justice. Whereas, the case of Leach and Brennan most clearly is and germaine to the general theme of your topic which is about an apparent miscarriage of justice. Therefore, to start another topic on the same theme, appeared superfluous and would only result in a bunfight between pro-choice and anti-abortionists.

My intent was to convey that I believe there are more important issues locally than the Howes case, which would be better served with appropriate publicity in Britain. According to you, the only link to Australia is the claim by the US that the Howes have knowingly sold drug components to Australian criminals. That is a claim by the USA, as yet I have not heard from the Australian Judicial authorities - perhaps you could provide some evidence here.

Apart from the abortion case in Queensland, you may also wish to highlight the plight of asylum seekers, the high rate of imprisonment of indigenous people compared to other Australians, wage disparity between executive and other workers, Bill of Rights, gay rights and so on.

You could do no worse than to start here:

http://www.humanrightsconsultation.gov.au/www/nhrcc/submissions.nsf/category?OpenView

Apologies to Brian Howe, but I believe you should be contacting British legal aid.

PS

Thanks Graham.
Posted by Fractelle, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 12:24:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am a little puzzled by the issues here.

Extradition to another country without evidence being presented and tested is without doubt a highly dubious practice.

At its most ferocious we have extraordinary rendition, with the objective to outsource the extraction of information through torture.

And there is I guess a scale of such practices, with the Gary McKinnon case as well as the "NatWest three" making their appearances at some point along the line.

So it is not at all difficult to have sympathy with the underlying legal issue: the laws governing the bilateral extradition arrangements between the UK and the USA are way, way out of balance.

That is shameful, Mr Brown.

But I am finding it really, really hard to find the appropriate spot for this specific case on my sympathometer.

The Howes position seems not to be "we never dunnit, yeronna", which would in my view put them right up there with the renditions, morally speaking.

But the tack seems to be "yes, we did it, but we never sold drugs online we sold Legal chemicals for amateur pyrotechnic use still legal in most of the world"

Which to a man on a galloping horse looks like an admission to the main game, but with a "we didn't know it was wrong" caveat tacked on the back.

So while I hope the extradition process gets into balance real-quick, for the sake of equity of handling, I can't really see this situation being particularly useful as a case study.

Sad about the kids, but.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 2:10:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle says. in her post of Wednesday, 21 October 2009 at 12:24:25 PM:

"[I] am still not convinced that the Howes situation
is relevant to the Australian system of justice.
Whereas, the case of Leach and Brennan most clearly
is and germaine to the general theme of your topic
which is about an apparent miscarriage of justice."

I am glad of your (and others') interest in this topic, but this topic is NOT about the miscarriage of justice, it is about the wholesale abandonment of judicial process in the UK and Australia where extradition requests from the US are concerned. This wholesale abandonment of due process means that every UK and Australian citizen stands at risk of arbitrary detention without charge, let alone trial, whwenever the US chooses to say so. The Howes' are simply real people around whom the consequences of this abdication, on the parts of the Brown and Howard governments respectively, from the upholding of due process of law, and the protections of the law, which every citizen is entitled to expect, has crystallised.

There has as yet been no justice to miscarry.

The Howes' problem is of an entire order of magnitude greater than that of the case of Leach and Brennan. The latter have at least been charged with something. In due course they will have the benefit of a proper trial in their own country. In the mean time they are at liberty on bail. Brian Howes, on the other hand was arrested on the strength of a US extradition request and remanded in custody WITHOUT CHARGE for 214 days, from which custody he was only released to house arrest after a suspected brain-damaging hunger strike. In all he has lost his liberty for three years WITHOUT CHARGES EVER HAVING BEEN LAID.

It happened to him. It could happen to you.

Far from being irritated at your raising of the Leach and Brennan matter, I would have welcomed it, and probably supported your position so far as you have revealed it. Sadly, I cannot pursue that here at the Howes' expense.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 4:06:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I too think you have it right Fractelle about your other thread it shames us but is best in another thread.
3 years without trial?
Clearly not right, if we, America, England, Australia want to fight drugs why are they as easy to get as Lolly's on and city street?
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 4:30:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Forrest

I can understand your concerns regarding extradition if there is insufficient evidence. I am not au fait with the extradition agreement between the US and the UK, nor am I knowledgeable about arrangements between the US and Australia.

I just find your choice of the Howes case to be a controversial example of the "abandonment of judicial process". For one, I am not fully convinced that judicial process has been abandoned in this case, in addition the materials that the Howes sell, are of such an ambiguity one would've expected the Howes to determine whether such sales were legal in countries like the US. For example, one cannot import Nembutal from Mexico, where it is sold legally within the country but not outside its borders.

As for the possibility of detention without charge - this can happen already right here in the land of Aus due to the terrorist laws that were legislated during the Howard governance and continue to date.
Posted by Fractelle, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 4:59:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brian,
I presume nothing in this case per se. I do *speculate* on possible scenarios and international reasoning.

Ignorance is no excuse under the law. "Sorry your honour I didn't know it was illegal" or "it's only two out of many chemicals" (your response to Belly) when what it interprets as 'sorry your honour I didn't know he was a DEA agent and it would come to this.'

As for the suffering of your children I agree with you that it's tragic but irrelevant to your innocence/guilt, a consequence of your choice to go that route.
Perhaps the legal process could have been sped up.

Like I said this isn't Australia's problem regardless how much we as individuals might empathise with the you, your family because of the consequences.

Realistically it's overly optimistic of you thinking that you pick a non involved jurisdiction, especially given what the US believes is it at stake.

I would suggest that your trial will be as fair as the US can make it if only because of the publicity.
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 7:26:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Howes, is it true that you avoided prosecution 10 years ago for the alleged sexual abuse of a six year old girl in Arkansas, as reported in the UK Sunday Mail on June 21 this year?

<< Drugs probe extradition Scot accused of sex attacks on six-year-old girl

A SCOT fighting extradition to the US over a drug racket probe is also accused of sex attacks on a young girl there.

Dad-of-seven Brian Howes will face charges over the alleged abuse if he is ordered to go to America.

He dodged prosecution 10 years ago by moving from his home in Arkansas to Oklahoma.

The 44-year-old later moved to Middlesbrough where a judge branded him "a real and continuing danger to young girls".

Howes, 44, and wife Kerry Anne, 30, are accused of exporting chemicals from Scotland to be used in the US to make outlawed drug crystal meth.

They were arrested in a police raid at their home in Bo'ness, West Lothian, after a probe by America's Drug Enforcement Administration.

An Edinburgh sheriff ruled they should be extradited but the couple are appealing. They face up to 20 years in prison if convicted.

The sex allegations surfaced more than 10 years ago and the girl, now 21, who made them was taken into care. >>

http://tiny.cc/uZZa2
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 11:35:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well C J Morgan that is interesting news.
I note at this early hour Brian Howe's is logged in, before me.
But as yet no comment.
While I may well be wrong I am not convinced we need to get involved.
My stand against those who profit from drugs, destroying lives, is solid still.
We should imprison all who trade knowingly in death.
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 22 October 2009 2:43:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, CJ & Belly,
this is disturbing news. Separate issues, and yet if true, I find whay sympathy I have, draining away.
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 22 October 2009 2:50:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Morgan,

I think that you raise a question that needs to be answered, The Sunday Mail story by Norman Silvester is untrue and is subject to Liable and Defamation.

I never assaulted anybody especially a child, I have five young girls here happy and living at home.

If the USA want me for sex crimes then I would like to see this evidence as it would be a bar to the current extradition.

I left the USA in 1994 to move back to my home town of Middlesbrough.

The Sunday Mail story was an attempt to stop me from making formal complaints against senior police officers in connection with our case and corruption, and to discredit that process and the extradition itself.

I might add that a senior police officer has resigned and is under criminal investigation for giving false information for my wife and my remand and getting warrants based on false information tp raid our premisses.

If you look at the Sunday Mail a week later you will see that the same reporter says I am being extradited for the same offence that has never happened.

Now regarding Middlesbrough I have to say that I was in a civil case that also has Illegal police involvement and I do not feel that it is needed to bring up here. But what I will say is I have five Daughters aged 5 months to 12 years living here with me and my wife who are all happy.

I have received many threats during this extradition from the police and do not intend to to defend any further a false Sunday Mail story that no other paper would repeat.

I was getting a lot a good media attention at the time and the Justice Minister was coming under increasing pressure, and it might be worth mentioning that the same paper had done several reasonable stories.

Mr Morgan surely you do not believe all you read in the papers? As if you did you would see all the other stories that support my family.

This is also off topic.
Posted by BrianHowes, Thursday, 22 October 2009 3:09:40 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nobody should be held for 214 days without a trial.We have to realise that terrorist laws can be used against anyone of us be we be guilty or innocent.

This is why groups are popping up like "Freedom Watch" hosted by Judge Andrew Napolitano.It is about time we all woke from our slumber of apathy.
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 22 October 2009 5:41:11 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shame, shame, shame.

I wish you the very best of luck, Mr Howes, I suspect you're going to need it.

As the response here has shown, there is a certain sanctimonious class of people, mostly those who've spent all of their lives sucking on some public tit or other rather than ever actually having the guts to take a risk and get into business, who are always lookng for something to purse their lips over and nod sagely about while taking their interminable coffee-breaks and pretending they're doing something valuable. An entrepreneur such as yourself is simply beyond their understanding.

Pay them no mind, they're simply doing what they're good at - writng much while saying little.

The issues here are:
- whether the US should have the right to interfere without hindrance in the workings of the justice system of another country
- whether US Law can override the Law of other countries, especially when the country has an arguably better-functioning Legal system than the US
-whether a trader in one country can be held liable for a breach of the law committed by someone else in another country
-chemicals have more than one use. Methamphetamins cannot be made without water, nor can cannabis be grown. Should we therefore stop reticulating it to homes in case someone uses it for those purposes?

Most importantly, it raises the issue of detention and other "incidental" punishment as a result of procedural unfairness.

I've mentioned here many times the fact that I was prevented from seeing my kids for 7 motnths due to a mere untested or substantiated allegation of violence from ny ex-wife. The whole thing could have been dismissed at the first mention, since for 7 months there was no new evidence, but the police kept asking for deferrals.The matter was eventually dismissed, but my kids and I were never compensated for that lost time.

While I wish you luck, I'd prepare for the worst. Once the sausage machine starts, it's run by nobodies like the ones you've been reading here.
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 22 October 2009 7:17:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Sunday Mail huh CJ? Interesting. Smells of desperation to me for someone like you to be quoting the Sunday Mail.

Nice summary of the issues antiseptic.
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 22 October 2009 7:53:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJMorgan,

Thank you very, very much for the tinyURL link you gave above, http://tiny.cc/uZZa2 . That link when expanded, becomes this:

http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/uk-and-international-news/2009/06/21/drugs-probe-extradition-scot-accused-of-sex-attacks-on-six-year-old-girl-78057-21459748/

Can you please tell us CJ, where you got that tinyURL, and also this tinyURL, http://tiny.cc/jzxYg , given in your post of Wednesday, 21 October 2009 at 8:33:49 AM? It could be very important.

I knew I could depend upon OLO to winkle out the connections in this matter. No sooner have we begun than someone provides the connection between this case and the proposed Polanski extradition from Switzerland. I knew it had to be there, but now we have it in detail! The US seems to so desperately want, (or is it that the UK so desperately wants to get rid of?), Brian Howes, that they brand him, IN THE PRESS, as being a kiddy-fiddler!

A kiddy-fiddler! Suspend all judgement. Switch brain off. Must be guilty, because Polanski definitely is. Guilty, guilty, guilty.

This libel of Brian Howes (that of the Sunday Mail and Norman Silvester) explains the latest twist that has occurred with the Polanski case in Switzerland: the US is now claiming that it was the SWISS Justice Ministry that first contacted the US when it learned of Polanski's intended visit to Zurich, not the other way around! Some of the more perceptive observers of that matter were questioning the TIMING of Polanski's arrest, and this now-promoted aspect of child sexual assault in connection with the Howes' extradition provides a very good explanation.

Belly, Squeers, and others, be very careful not to jump to conclusions in this matter. It is very early days. The indications that some relatively senior British police officers may have had ulterior motives for essentially fitting-up Brian Howes for this extradition provide a very good reason why the Howes' should be extradited to, and face trial in, Australia.

Australia's is the only jurisdiction without a prejudiced vested interest.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Thursday, 22 October 2009 8:05:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Forrest. I agree, the extradition treaty between the USA and the UK seems to be an appalling agreement - at least from the perspective of UK citizens.

However, I don't think that the case of Brian Howes is a particularly good example with which to garner support for its removal. The more I look into his case and background, the less sympathy I have for him. I suspect that many other reasonable people would feel much the same.

I found the links by doing a simple search on Google News in response to your erroneous claim on your other thread that the media in the UK had been silenced with respect to Howes' case, then went to the Tiny URL website to shrink them to something less cumbersome.

I appreciate that you think you've found some underhand conspiracy by the US government - however, I suspect that it's more to do with the US authorities having a strong antipathy to illegal drug manufacturers and child abusers.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 22 October 2009 8:17:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<< Australia's is the only jurisdiction without a prejudiced vested interest. >>

Forrest, Australia's jurisdiction is not relevant, thus far, and I doubt will ever be, to the Howes case.

Now, is anyone concerned that AUSTRALIA still has anti-terrorist laws that means anyone, including you Forrest, can be held without charge or even recourse if evidence is lacking?

CJ Morgan

The news you uncovered, while disturbing, is completely irrelevant to the current situation the Howes are in and would not be presented in a trial based on the illegal export of drugs.
Posted by Fractelle, Thursday, 22 October 2009 8:20:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello Mr Morgan,

How do you dare to call me a child abuser? on the basis of a Sunday Mail article?

My wife and I never sold drugs we sold chemicals up to 60 chemicals around the world with no complaint from any other country.

The chemicals the US say we sold the US are Legal in the US, They just need to be registered if you sell them, How are we to of known if they would be misused if we had no indication of misuse here in the UK?

You never mention that it is my wife and I being extradited to the US not just myself.

You have formed the opinion that I am an abuser of children without evidence. This makes you no better than the US who expect extradition without evidence.

Forrest is right the mention of child abuse is enough to take away sympathy as is intended by those in power. And you Mr Morgan produce the exact reaction that is expected which is very sad.

Do you not wonder why my 5 children are sleeping in our home if the supposed information you discovered is true?

You might try and research a little more before coming to your conclusions. There is recorded evidence on my sites that show that we have not committed an extradition offence. If you give me your IP address I will gladly see if you have visited the evidence?

You are not concerned about me, are you remotely concerned about my wife and children?

Again as Fractelle said it's not relevant but is very relevant when used in the way you seek to discredit me.

I hope that the people reading this thread are more open minded about police corruption and false media reporting.
Posted by BrianHowes, Thursday, 22 October 2009 8:46:59 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Fractelle - you're absolutely correct, of course. The allegations of child sexual abuse against Mr Howes are not relevant to the indictments that are the basis of the application to extradite him to the USA.

They do, however, influence whether or not I could be bothered to take up this guy's cause - which is why I asked him if the allegations I stumbled across are true. You'll note that he's studiously avoided answering the question I asked.

I think the big issue here is the way that law enforcement agencies will utilise any legislative tool available to them in order to bring people before the courts. My concern about the UK-USA extradition arrangement is that it was enacted in the hysteria of the 'War Against Terror' but is being applied to a very different kind of alleged crime. This is why your example of the young couple from Cairns is relevant - i.e. because the police found the mifepristone packaging in their home while searching for illicit recreational drugs. Having found nothing else to charge the young couple with, the police decided to arrest and charge them with the very dubious crime of procuring their own medical abortion.

Forrest Gumpp has done us all a service by highlighting the necessity of us being resistant to efforts by States to opportunistically legislate against human rights.

Before I write Mr Howe completely as being worth supporting - in favour of issues that are far more immediate and apparently more deserving - I would like Mr Howe to answer the question I asked of him about the allegations of child sexual abuse against him in the USA.

I'd also like him to say whether or not the evidence about misleading packaging of the presursor chemicals he sold into the USA, proffered to the Grand Jury in his indictment, are true. Did he, knowing that the chemicals he sold and from which he profited substantially could be used as precursor ingredients in the manufacture of methamphetamine, knowingly misrepresent the contents of his consignments to the USA in order to avoid official scrutiny?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 22 October 2009 12:13:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dang - I clicked the wrong button before I'd finished editing.

Mr Howe, I didn't accuse you of being a child sexual abuser - apparently someone in Arkansas did, according to the media report I quoted.

I asked you whether you had avoided prosecution for that alleged crime by leaving Arkansas, as claimed in the report.

A straight answer would be appreciated.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 22 October 2009 12:17:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brian Howes
Where would you get the Idea that people in Australia would care any more than the people in the UK or US
I have fought outright criminal behaviour for twelve years of the removal of my son
Altering of Court File records, False representation, Collusion, perjury and lies, the Solicitor sacked by the parents turns up representing the child taking directions from DoCS, the child deprived of an education, Crying for his parents until he makes himself physically sick and the list goes on
Nobody gives a damn about that so why do you think Aussie cares anymore than others
If you want my e-mail address it is graysond49@yahoo.com

I wish you well and from what I have read it seems a sad case but well wishes is about all I can give and send

Thanks try to have a good life
From Dave
Posted by dwg, Thursday, 22 October 2009 12:22:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan

I understand every point you have made in your last posts. And I agree that a search into previous allegations against the Howes is not at all inspiring for their cause. I too find it difficult to sympathise with the Howes (their children of course are innocent and deserve support).

However, the instances of questionable uses of extradition by law agencies are as numerous as they are reprehensible. Anyone remember David Hicks? There is no doubt that US Law regards itself as beyond accountability - although in Hicks' case the then Australian Government was complicit with his detention in Guantanamo.

It is the methods used we must question and as I have tried to explain to Forrest there are far more heinous examples of arrest of definitively established innocents than the Howes - and much closer to home.
Posted by Fractelle, Thursday, 22 October 2009 12:49:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic

- US interfering in the workings of the justice system of another country.

A. Is it? Any country can request, all else is up to the UK.

- US Law overriding the Law of other countries?

A. Same answer, subjective assertion

- A trader in one country held liable for a breach of the law committed by someone else in another country.

A The case is about what Mr Howe allegedly did. i.e. supplied banned chemicals across the US border, in which case the US has every right to request extradition.

- chemicals have more than one use. Methamphetamins cannot be made without water etc.?

A. Irrelevant and false reasoning.

- It raises the issue of detention and other "incidental" punishment as a result of procedural unfairness.

A. I'd agree except for "procedural unfairness" transpose “with slow procedures”.

NB Australia as a uninvolved country in the 'crime' has no "legal interest" or jurisdiction ( legal principal in all three countries). Our involvement without being officially asked by either country could be seen as interference in their justice systems ( international Law).

ALL
This case has significantly different legal principals with Hicks.

- he was an Aussie. We wanted him back
- his application for UK was wishful thinking too.
- There was no recognised third party country (Afghanistan) claiming jurisdiction.

This is a clear case of Mr Howe being charged for a extraditable crime in the US i.e. selling BANNED substances to a US citizen in the US. What that substance was is raises the crime to counter terrorism with and diplomacy (international agreements).

I have empathy for his children but HE chose this route.

While his past issues are strictly irrelevant, one wonders if
- The two aren't linked in some way.(at least in the minds of [Cheney's Home state?] and the US justice system).
- The real reason Mr Howe's resistance.

NB I am just speculating on motivations NOT ACCUSING anyone.
Posted by examinator, Thursday, 22 October 2009 1:57:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brian, I have sympathy for your predicament, but your case doesn't seem clear cut enough to me to engender too much support at this stage I'm afraid.

I'd be interested to know the quantities you'd sold of the two chemicals used in the production of crystal meth. If they were considerable quantities, and I suspect they were to have attracted the heavy response they have, then I think it's a little disingenuous of you to plead complete innocence of any knowledge of their illegal usage.

You'd think exporting these chemicals for use in medicine, fireworks and sheep dip would entail very different invoice addresses to those being supplied, inadvertently or not, to illegal drug labs. And besides if the orders were large and regular as they very likely were, surely they should have sparked some questioning on your part.

Personally, I think anyone involved in a business selling chemicals needs to be totally aware and accountable for where they end up. A claim of all care and no responsibility doesn't quite cut it with me when it comes to chemicals like this I'm afraid, but I'm happy to stand corrected.
Posted by Bronwyn, Thursday, 22 October 2009 3:47:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bronwyn

Well reasoned as always.

I know from selling items on Ebay for shipment overseas that a customs declaration must be completed for display on the exterior of any package, which includes a description and any special handling that something like chemicals would require. Not having sold chemicals myself, I can only posit that chemicals would require more stringent declaration requirements than household items such as books or DVD's.

Forrest

If you would place the same amount of passion into the predicament of people like Leach and Brennan, I think I could take your concerns a little more seriously.

BTW, the use of Tiny URLs is simply a courtesy, other blog-sites than OLO actually provide a Tiny URL tool to shrink excessively long web-links.
Posted by Fractelle, Thursday, 22 October 2009 4:01:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic surely you agree you went too far in that post?
Your pain at your problem is noted, even shared by most of us, me for sure.
Tell you one day of my work with fathers rolled and compacted by the system.
In your need to show us your pain you insulted all who disagreed with you.
In fact you found instant links to this case and yours that may not exist.
NEVER will I support ANYONE who hurts children.
You I no one here knows if Brian Howe's ever did.
But my view that I can not give support is my right, and you defame us, with your post.
Brian, if America wants you badly enough to lie, to corrupt police , to use media lies, then I fear for us all.
I am weary of 9/11 histrionics, conspiracy's, planed financial melt downs, Mate I am not changing my mind answer C J Morgans questions.
The written word sometimes like body language says much we think is hidden.
Good luck to you and family you well may need it
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 22 October 2009 4:29:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CSMorgaon,

I have already said in an earlier post that he Sunday Mail allegations are not true and Libel. I have never abused a child in any way.

How am I not answering when I have said the same in previous posts.

No I never avoided the alleged crime by leaving Arkansas. as no crime has been committed.

The chemicals are not precursor chemicals in the UK and are still not listed as precursor chemicals.

We shipped Iodine, As Iodine for medical use and we shipped Red Phosphorus with, For Metal works which is one of it's uses.

Every package of up to 40 chemicals had a return address and the chemicals were labelled in accordance with UK law which included the UN # our return address: our VAT # a product safety sheet and UN approved packaging.

Mr Morgan you say we made a lot of money on these products, if we hd taken $132,000 from the sales over 3 years that is not all profit far from it. I hardly consider that to be drug money.

The US in documents I have, have said that for the most part customers had either 1 or 2 orders not many orders that would have been suspicions.

We only sold small amounts packaged in 100 Gram containers.

We only took credit cards for our sales.

The chemicals are not Illegal in the US or Illegal to sell to the US from The UK but are listed chemicals in the US.

I had a duty to know what all the chemicals I sold had a potential to do and had thousands of combinations on my computers to ascertain the livelihood of misuse. I have also said before in this thread 11 chemicals are used to make Meth and we had no participation with meth labs.

I must drop my girls at school now and will answer any questions when I return.

If this forum is anything to go by, the chance of a fair trial in the USA is even more unlikely.
Posted by BrianHowes, Thursday, 22 October 2009 5:28:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brian Howes
If you had of read my previous post nobody gives a damn
I have fought outright criminal behaviour for twelve years in relation to the Illegal removal of my son
The boy crying until he was physically sick then thinking that he was going to get into trouble for that etc etc
Bloke, This is Child Abuse and still noone gives a damn
This is just a yarn spot where people yarn on without ever making a change or difference
I send my best wishes and hope things work out well for you but that is about all you will end up with from here
I just feel for the hurt that this will have on your kids

Thanks Bloke all the best to you and wife and your kids
Take care from Dave

graysond49@yahoo.com
Posted by dwg, Thursday, 22 October 2009 6:11:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well. Having perused the day's posts here ... it's a poser! And these are passionate matters. I'm tempted to try to think outside the square, but there are some matters that are not up for debate--though they should be.
It's true enough I s'pose, what dwg says, (without, for once, his bitter refrain, "have a good life"), OLO's a yarn spot and we're a bunch of misfits.
I agree with much of Antiseptic's declamation. But I agree with Examinator too, and CJ and others.
At bottom though I think that we have to hold our judicial system to account, and question our conditioning, which the justice system reinforces. As Forrest exasperatedly says, "A kiddy-fiddler! Suspend all judgement. Switch brain off. Must be guilty, because Polanski definitely is. Guilty, guilty, guilty."
When I was younger, I drank and drove many times, but luckily I never killed anyone. Have I now any right to scream "lock the bastard up?" when a drink driver runs someone down? But for the grace of God go I. And if we are honest, excluding whatever crimes any of us "Have" committed, what might we not have done had the opportunity presented itself? Let he who is without (potential) sin etc.
The chemicals and the other charge are most definitely separate issues. More importantly, and this is becoming a refrain of mine I know, we are all capable of rationalising away our pangs of conscience, or even our manifest evils. When there's a quid to be made we probably all have our price where the morality gets elided.
And what of a "country's" ethics? What kind of example has the US and its allies given their citizens recently, or at any time in history? There is no national precedent for ethical behaviour!
None of which is to presume the Howes' guilt or innocence. But we ought to take pause.
You have my sympathy dwg, but not much use I'm afraid.
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 22 October 2009 7:14:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers
You said it
Thanks anyway for the"You have my sypathy dwg, but not use I'm afraid"
Bloke?(correct me if I'm wrong)
Every one has a skeleton in the closet We're human aren't we
I have probably walked the craziest maddest basta/d of a life as any
For want of a better description about the same levels as that king fella in the book by the same name but this is where I am not real sure about this god fella or I have worn out my favours with him
I have had all this bad life but I'm running out of time if this god fella plans on this king bit
Justice
I was once told by an old fella comprised of three things
Logics, Equality and Morality
If any one of these were missing then you could not have a just law
Then you must surely offend or prejudice some of thier basic rights and to do so requires a damn good reason
I.E. referenda
Justice must not only be done it must be seen to be done also

Thanks anyway
Have a good life
From Dave
Posted by dwg, Thursday, 22 October 2009 7:48:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers
Sorry left out the word much
and meant to sign off with
Have a bad life then
From Dave
Posted by dwg, Thursday, 22 October 2009 8:01:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Examinator:"Any country can request, all else is up to the UK."

As I said, it's about whether the UK should allow that to happen with so little effort made to comply with basic principles of procedural fairness. Personally, I'm of the view that for them to act as they have is pusillanimous at best.

We have already had in this country several examples of people being thrown to the US wolves for political rather than legal motives. US courts arrogate to themselves the right to simply ignore judgements made in other countries and their "justice" system is even more broken than their medical nightmare.

Examinator:"The case is about what Mr Howe allegedly did"

And the reason there is concern about that is because of what other people did with what he sold them perfectly legally in his own country. I sell timber, which can conceivably be used as a club - wood has been used in that way for thousands of years. Am I responsible for ensuring that none of my clients use it that way?

Examinator:"Irrelevant and false reasoning."

LOL. You'll have to do better than that, old chap. Bald statements, especially ones that make unsustainable claims, such as the one I quoted of yours, simply make you look foolish.

Now, do tell me why you think my reasoning is false, won't you?

Belly:"Antiseptic surely you agree you went too far in that post?"

Not at all, mate. I've said all of that before and more and I stand by it. Apart from yourself, have a look at the people attacking Mr Howes - useless teat-suckers one and all.

If his business was not proper, why did the UK not shut him down? As they didn't, it was obviously OK by them.

If our countries are going to support the primacy of US law, why on earth are we bothering to have countries at all? Let's all just accept the inevitable and start afresh as part of the US.

If it wasn't so sad it'd be a joke.
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 23 October 2009 6:09:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Septic: << useless teat-suckers one and all >>

Good one, old chap. Nobody's abused or attacked anybody on this thread, but you just can't help yourself, can you? I'd decided not to bother with the hapless Mr Howes any more, and the fact you've weighed in as his advocate confirms that decision.

Also, if you're referring to me you're absolutely incorrect, as usual. I own and run my own business, which I operate legally and ethically.

Good luck, Mr Howes - you'll need it.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 23 October 2009 6:33:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJMorgan:"Nobody's abused or attacked anybody on this thread"

CJMorgan(Wednesday, 21 October 2009 11:35:58 PM) :"Mr Howes, is it true that you avoided prosecution 10 years ago for the alleged sexual abuse of a six year old girl"

CJMorgan(Wednesday, 21 October 2009 8:33:49 AM) :"Perhaps Mr Howes and his partner should have thought about their children's welfare"

Keep sucking that teat, little fella.
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 23 October 2009 6:49:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is a shame, but I am going to have to waste a post in BrianHowes' topic thread.

Fractelle indicates, in her post of Thursday, 22 October 2009 at 4:01:02 PM, that she considers concerns expressed in relation to the Howes' extradition should only be taken more seriously if I was to "place the same amount of passion into the predicament of people like Leach and Brennan" as I have apparently been thought to have displayed in Brian Howes' cause.

Start the discussion Fractelle: GrahamY has already indicated he would welcome such a topic being submitted. Give OLOers somewhere to post that is not at BrianHowes' topic's expense, so far as posting limits are concerned. On the basis of what you said in your 'opening post' thereon on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 at 9:15:11 AM, I may well support you, as it appears procedural propriety may be an issue in that case. You have no right to the irritation you have expressed at this topic having gotten up, although I think I understand the cause of it. You always were, and remain, free to open the Leach and Brennan matter up. Go for it!

I confess to a little peccadillo. I have succumbed to a vice learned principally from Channel 9: I'm afraid that on occasions I engage in shameless cross-promotion of topics in which I have an interest. Here is a recent example:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3128#74351

In the following post, CJMorgan, at least superficially rightly, takes me to task for an admittedly provocative assertion I made therein. I would just like to point out that all but one of the links given there could have been collected on Brian Howes' website http://extradition.org.uk .

What is important to note is that all of this linked information that CJMorgan, and perhaps others, interpret as being prejudicial to Brian Howes' standing in this contention, has been provided by Brian Howes himself!

So keep an open mind folks. The thread's about to take a different tack. Watch!
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Friday, 23 October 2009 9:44:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Forrest

You have deliberately avoided the points I have made with my posts - that "extradition (or arrest) without evidence" is a common occurrence, I used the example of Leach and Brennan to illustrate that there are far more worthy cases to battle for than the Howes. If I wished to start a parallel topic to yours I would've already done so. However, it is my considered view I have do not have the time to facilitate such, when the issue has already been raised here. I am absolutely certain that had Graham determined my posts irrelevant to this discussion, he would've wasted no time informing me of such. BTW, I await for the "different tack" with anticipation.

A-septic

Continuing, as is your modus operandi, to personally insult all and any with whom you disagree, does not enhance your argument, nor persuade the "teat suckers" - whoever they might be in your imagination. I will elucidate the following carefully so that you may understand:

In an attempt to determine credibility, CJ Morgan did not attack Howe, he asked questions pertinent to establish the legitimacy of Howe's complaint. Capiche?
Posted by Fractelle, Friday, 23 October 2009 10:07:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle:"questions pertinent to establish the legitimacy of Howe's complaint. "

Nope, he made snide insinuations in his usual weak effort at ad hominem.

Tell me, is it true that you had "years of counselling" after a failed relationship?

See how easy it is?

I'm not especially interested in what Mr Howes's customers did with what e sold them. If he completed the paperwork and the US allowed his goods to enter the country, whose to blame? If they stopped them at the border and told him they wouldn't let them in, he'd stop bothering to try, I suspect.

What I'm concerned about is that Mr Howes is being railroaded to make a point, rather than because it's the best way to handle the situation. I'm also concerned about the broader implication for sovereignty if this can be allowed to happen.

Let's not forget that he was apparently doing nothing illegal within his home country. If the US didn't like it they could have lobbied the British Government openly to have the subtances prohibited.

This is a nasty farce that could have implications for business everywhere.
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 23 October 2009 10:33:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In his post of Tuesday, 20 October 2009 at 1:55:45 PM, Houellebecq has most fortuitously mentioned, in an hypothetical context, what prospectively might transpire with respect to extradition from the US to Australia, was a US gun manufacturer to sell weapons of a type illegal in Australia to persons ordering such here. As we all know, absolutely nothing would transpire. The legal liability resides entirely with the Australian would-be importer as to whether such gun would be lawful in Australia.

It is a fortuitous mention of guns, because the alleged purchase, by Brian Howes, over the internet, of a gun was what is claimed to have 'led to' the subsequent 'discovery' of his precursor chemical supply business by USDEA officials.

You will see that 'event' referred to in the second last paragraph of this post, here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3093#74056

The upshot of this alleged firearms offence by Brian Howes in the UK was that he was acquitted of it, he having only purchased a lawfully importable replica incapable of modification to enable it to fire ammunition, but not before the warrant obtained in connection with that alleged offence had been used to seize all of his computers used in his quite legitimate chemical supply business.

It is believable that this seizure of his computers was motivated by his 'activism' in relation to an internet music download service site named 'Oink!'. It was only AFTER the seizure of his computers that the USDEA investigators claimed to have 'discovered' the evidence of Brian Howes having supplied precursor chemicals to what the USDEA claimed were meth labs in the US.

The following links provide copies of Cleveland [UK] Police Authority complaint and court process documents, including search warrants, relating to the circumstances in which this whole extradition matter arose.

http://brianhowes.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/cleveland_police-complaint1.pdf (a 34.9Kb file)

http://brianhowes.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/cleveland_police-complaint2.pdf (a 20.3Kb file)

http://brianhowes.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cleveland-police-court-document.pdf (a 1.3Mb file)

Viewers should particularly note the mention of this alleged firearms offence as providing the USDEA with a reason for which Howes came to their attention in the Operation Red Dragon report referred to in this post:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3093#74056

Peruse the documents and ponder.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Friday, 23 October 2009 12:34:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are now a number of issues of extradition and procedure on which there is potential conflict between American and non-American law.

The extradition issue has caused considerable anxiety among United Kingdom businessmen, who have been alarmed by the case of the so-called Nat West Three and other high profile business cases.

After 9/11, there was a natural willingness in Britain to assist the United States authorities in extradition proceedings against suspected terrorists.

With minimum negotiation, the British Home Secretary, David Blunkett, accepted an unequal treaty which somewhat simplified U.S. extradition to the United Kingdom, but virtually eliminated habeas corpus safeguards in extradition cases from the U.K. to U.S. Under the old law, the U.S. had to show that there was a prima facie case that a crime had been committed. I would like to add that David Blunkett has put on record he did not think he was signing UK citizens rights away and was expecting it to be used against Terrorist.

Under the new treaty, the U.K. has to show “probable cause” to obtain an extradition order from a U.S. court, but the U.S. prosecutor only has to show that charges have been lodged.

The UK government under the agreement must pay all associated legal costs for every request and all court cost for the USA. This means the UK council for the USA can work 24/7 on the case but the person being extradited is only allowed the minimum legal aid.

This should also be of interest to the Australian people as the same may happen to you if not stopped here in the UK.
Posted by BrianHowes, Friday, 23 October 2009 5:59:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr. Howes - what was the purpose of "discreet packaging" (I also read it somewhere written as "discrete packaging") - whichever it was - why?

Also, I think the list of buyer instructions included asking you to write something inaccurate on customs slips. Could you elaborate on that?

thanks.
Posted by Pynchme, Friday, 23 October 2009 6:17:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic,

You of all people squealing, or aggressive questioning, insensitivity? Come on, talk about the pot calling the kettle!

God help you if you ever go to court. That is exactly the questions you would face. All that was required was Mr Howe to point out that there was no substance to the claim.
BTW I do note that he (Mr Howe) attributing all manner of accusations
and false assumptions, one can deduce because I ignored the emotional side issues. Perhaps I wasn't sympathetic to his emotional triggers.

Mr Howe should be thanked for his concern for Australians being next. We can take that on advisement. his altruism under the circumstances is, interesting.

PS I distrust any argument is laden with emotional triggers rather than plain facts.
Posted by examinator, Friday, 23 October 2009 6:40:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Posted by Pynchme, Friday, 23 October 2009 6:17:00 PM

You say! "Mr. Howes - what was the purpose of "discreet packaging"

There was never discreet packaging.

But the DEA had sites using our name called http://thechemicalcloset.com and http://thechemicalcloset.co.uk

Registered at our address and selling even more dangerous chemicals advertising discreet shipping. These sites have been erased from the Whois database but I have evidence of there existence and content.
James porter part of the DEA investigation in our case was the admin contact. Draw your own conclusions, and if you need evidence and I still have posts left I will do that.

If you mean Labelled with a proper customs label, Recorded Delivery and a full return address to be discreet then so be it.

You also say!

"Also, I think the list of buyer instructions included asking you to write something inaccurate on customs slips. Could you elaborate on that?"

Yes people did ask for discreet shipping and also for packages to be miss labelled, What is not said is what is important here and the is None of those emails or orders had been filled.

There is an order which is the best the USA can do on the indictment that says an under cover DEA agent place an order and mentioned misuse and the indictment rightfully say we cancelled that order. Then the indictment goes on to say the DEA ordered under a different name without reference to misuse and we shipped it. The DEA see this as doing something wrong, how are we supposed to cross check all names and addresses for every purchase?

The fact we cancelled the order that was going to be misused surely shows our good intentions.
Posted by BrianHowes, Friday, 23 October 2009 8:59:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah right, Brian. Tell it to the Judge.

Examinator, you've nailed it. He still hasn't actually answered the question I asked him, i.e. did he leave Arkansas to avoid prosecution for the crime he claims didn't happen. I didn't ask whether or not the child abuse happened, or if he did it - rather did he avoid prosecution for it by leaving Arkansas.

Fractelle's also right - it's all about credibility. This guy wants to enlist support for his cause but dissembles when asked some basic questions about media reports about him. I think the "suckers" here are those who think he's a poster boy for what might be a valid campaign about due process and the abuse of human rights under the guise of terrorism-inspired legislation and international agreements about extradition.

Speaking of whom, as examinator points out it's quite risible (not to mention hypocritical) that Septic claims I've attacked Howes by asking him about media reports about him. Septic is on record here at OLO frequently badgering women with questions about the veracity of their reports about sexual assaults against them, justifying his bullying with the disingenuous excuse that he's just asking questions.

I didn't bully or badger Howes, I just asked him about a damning media report and he still hasn't provided a straight answer.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 23 October 2009 10:46:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CsMorgan,

This your recent post.

Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 23 October 2009 10:46:33 PM

"I didn't ask whether or not the child abuse happened, or if he did it - rather did he avoid prosecution for it by leaving Arkansas."

CsMorgan here was you reply already.

Posted by BrianHowes, Thursday, 22 October 2009 5:28:43 PM

"No I never avoided the alleged crime by leaving Arkansas. as no crime has been committed."

Which part of that did you not understand?

To clarify the question you pose I will answer it yet again in the words you seem to like better.

No I never left Arkansas to avoid prosecution. and more to the point I moved to Dallas Texas.

You are persistently off topic on this thread and I would remind you what the topic is about. "Extradition without evidence from the UK / US"

If I have taken some of your limelight from your postings I am sorry, If you feel this messaging board should be just for Australians then tell me?

The Accusations are relevant indirectly but there is no need to defame me every time you post.

CsMorgan why not participate in the thread say something constructive even, as I am sure you are not deliberately engaging in this way in order to try and influence people who are contributing to the thread in a positive manor are you? By referencing abuse in every post.
Posted by BrianHowes, Friday, 23 October 2009 11:38:27 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I Brian still think you avoided answering the C J Morgan question.
And that you tried to change the direction of the thread.
Did you change states to avoid that charge?
bu##s@@it that no crime had been commited will not do.
Now go back a few posts.
Read my view written words can show hidden things as clearly as body language.
Ask why some leap headlong into subjects that even a sniff of harm to a child or woman is highlighted.
Ask your self why?
Yes I agree the laws seems extremely bad, I understand it was not aimed at other than terrorists.
That maybe it is being miss used.
That you can present a case saying you did nothing wrong.
Bloke I however have not been convinced you did not know it was against the laws of America to sell these products.
Do the crime Brian do the time.
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 24 October 2009 3:37:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brian
As I have said before you will not change the world by posting on this site
Half don't want anymore than talk and the other Half don't give a st/ff
I have posted my e-mail address if you are interested in seeing injustice and outright corruption
As long as it is not happening to some one else then the people don't care or give a damn
Simple as it is
Try to have a good life
From Dave
graysond49@yahoo.com
Posted by dwg, Saturday, 24 October 2009 5:02:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ, Belly, all.

Mr Howe is right in a sense what ever happened in Arkansas largely irrelevant to his extradition on supplying drugs charges per se.

I do wonder what his expectation of an OLO posting were. While some politicians or activists connect to this site, it is when all is said and done, a discussion site .

Was he expecting us to get fired up and take up his cause? i.e. petitioning for Australia to get involved with an extradition in which we have NO standing.

If so rather than present it in a fashion to inspire confidence he has opted for a series of emotional triggers (ET). Those of us who have political connections know while ETs may ultimately be part of sales job to the masses, they simply don't work when trying to sell to pollies.

Had his case ultimately being so bound up in international legalese he might have had some success by choosing the right talk back host.
Then again, most would be disinterested because it isn't directly Australia's problem.

Even his warning about us being next, is relatively a moot point as far as he is concerned.

All the Bovine excrement aside, it would appear, that he is being made an example of by the US. Notwithstanding there is nothing that can be done by us that will help.

Likewise it is pointless discussing what he should have done...he torpedoed those ships some time back.

All we can do is with him luck and suggest that rather than dwell on his victim status, spend his energies working out his defence, if the worst happens.

I might also suggest that if his fighting extradition if successful, that wont 'clean the slate' so to speak, with the US. He would be wise to be very careful where he or his wife go outside UK and what he does in future. Sadly publicity can be a double sided sword, the US may make him a bigger target.
Posted by examinator, Saturday, 24 October 2009 7:26:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly:"I however have not been convinced you did not know it was against the laws of America to sell these products."

That's not relevant - he was operating in Scotland, not in the US. IfUS authorities didn't want his stuff beintg sold, they should have confiscated it at the border or perhaps sought an injunction in his own country against his sending it to theirs. Mr Howes didn't have a shop in the US, he labelled all the orders correctly, he says, so if one of the agencies in the police state that is the US stuffed up, it's their problem, not his.

Must I be aware, as a business owner who may trade overseas, of all of the regulations in every country I may deal with, or should I be able to rely on the fact that I am acting legally in my own country and leave it to the authorites in the other country to enforce their own rules?

No one has had a go at that yet, mostly because the useless teat-suckers got involved and did their pursed-lip best to derail the discussion, as always.

Empty vessels...

Examinator:"All that was required was Mr Howe to point out that there was no substance to the claim. "

Which he did.

Examinator:"I ignored the emotional side issues"

LOL. Old chap, you ARE an "emotional side issue"
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 24 October 2009 7:43:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree Examinator.

I find it an interesting point to note that Forrest displayed the same degree of outrage at the procedure for the extradition of Polanski to the US - a case where we are clearer regarding whether or not a crime was committed.

My feeling has been that the issue we should all be debating is the ethics of extradition - however, I have been told by Forrest I should start my own thread on this topic. Frankly, I am not well enough to facilitate an entire topic to my preferred standards. I cannot understand why extradition cannot be discussed here. If anything, Brian Howes may learn something - he has nothing else to gain from publicity here, as Examinator has pointed out.

Given that Forrest wishes to focus solely on the Howes and not discuss the process whereby the Howes and many others have been caught, there is very little to add to this thread.
Posted by Fractelle, Saturday, 24 October 2009 7:46:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle,

All emotions aside then!

First I would say that if no crime has been committed and no evidence has been shown Extradition is surely Illegal?

If you want to speak of extradition it's fine with me, I have no problem with that.

If I use emotions in my posts it is because I am Human and years of persecution and then extradition, it makes it hard not to show them in posts, but I will.

I do not expect support from this forum unless it is freely given on the matters being raised.

Antiseptic

I do not expect your support either as I am on this forum and I really do not expect to gain anything from it.

I do thank you for pointing out the fact I answered the question by CSMorgan and others.

I hold information that has never been shared with anybody about certain issues that relate to all of you here. I do not even know if it can be shared but it does effect you or could effect you in the future.

I am not expecting miracles from a forum as I have over 50 websites and just one of them has about one third of the visitors here daily.

I fight my case and until I find different, I fight alone.

I hope I did not add any emotion to this post as it was not my intention.

I like to discuss matters of concern and that is the only reason I am here.

If you don't like me or what I post you do not need to be involved. But I have made your forum more popular as many US agencies will be watching right now.

examinator,

I think you need to look up the recipe for Meth it is not made with 2 chemicals but 11 different chemicals not drugs and a lot of equipment used in laboratories.

I find you rather rational! I hope I am not being emotional by saying that.
Posted by BrianHowes, Saturday, 24 October 2009 8:42:08 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle
Sorry to hear your not well
For all that it may be worth I wish you well
All the best
From Dave
Posted by dwg, Saturday, 24 October 2009 9:21:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BrianHowes,

1. You didn't explain what your original intention was in promising customers "discreet delivery". Assuming you had no intention of supplying drug manufacturers, what advantage did you suppose that would confer on your customers?

2. There were occasions where packages were marked to go through customs with labels that were misleading to a lesser or greater extent. I would think that in itself would constitute a crime.

3. I don't think this matter is as simple as the US pushing against less powerful governments to get what they want. There are international agreements and protocols that dozens of countries have adopted, under the UN I think, and some of them quite old, about transporting certain substances across borders, including substances used in drug manufacture. Australia is party to such agreements so I doubt that you could expect much assistance or protection from this government.

The illicit drug trade is regarded as a global problem requiring global intervention including restrictions on what can be imported and exported. Even if a substance is legal in one country; it might not be legal to send it to a country where it's illegal. I'm wondering if the US DEA should have just watched where your packages were going and followed them to find the meth-cooks. Your custom from drug manufacturers probably would have declined in due course once people involved in that biz realized that packages from you were being followed by authorities.

4. I think CJ's questions are pertinent and help clarify the situation. I'm pretty sure you can expect worse from authorities so maybe you could regard all of this as a practice run, even if it isn't what you'd hoped for. (What did you hope for btw?)
Posted by Pynchme, Saturday, 24 October 2009 10:05:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle says:

"My feeling has been that the issue we should
all be debating is the ethics of extradition
- however, I have been told by Forrest I should
start my own thread on this topic.
Frankly, I am not well enough to facilitate
an entire topic to my preferred standards."

I thank Fractelle for the implied compliment that this topic (although not strictly mine, it having being started by Brian Howes) is seen as being facilitated to her preferred standards, at least so far as I, and I hope Brian Howes, are apparently seen as doing. (I do not seek to hide the fact that I suggested the course of posting to this forum to Brian Howes.) I am happy to concede that the issue we should be debating is the ethics of this specific extradition, and that of the Australian Hew Griffiths, if that concession cuts out the two remaining free kicks Fractelle has. I did not realize she was inhibited from opening a topic for health reasons. Do we have a deal Fractelle?

Before you answer, I feel I should advise of this breaking news: it is reported that the US has as of Thursday 22 October, now formally requested the extradition from Switzerland of Roman Polanski. That report is here:

http://bit.ly/1Mcsik

Its significant content is, if the report is correct, that the MAXIMUM sentence Polanski faces upon return to the US is two years upon only the charge to which he pled in the original plea bargain deal, that of unlawful sexual intercourse, to use the words of the news report.

I don't seek to further discuss details of the Polanski extradition in this thread: the 'Polanski Conundrum ...' thread is still open for posting if anyone wishes to discuss this matter.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3093#74082

I intend posting there with more detail. I only mention this development here because it represents an absolutely huge back-down by the US authorities, and may be considered by Fractelle to be information of relevance in deciding whether to accept the deal proposed re this thread.

I await her response.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Saturday, 24 October 2009 11:27:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan, Thursday, 22 October 2009 12:17:21 PM:

"I asked you whether you had avoided prosecution
for that alleged crime by leaving Arkansas,
as claimed in the report. A straight answer would be appreciated."

A straight question would facilitate a straight answer. The omission of a destination could create an impression of a flight from US jurisdiction, which did not happen. All the less excusable as the words 'for Oklahoma' were contained in the earlier quotation of the media report.

Its repetition that smears.

Fractelle, Thursday, 22 October 2009 12:49:17 PM:

David Hicks was not extradited from Australia to the US. He was, to all accounts, 'taken in arms' as the expression goes, in Afghanistan where he was training with Al Qaida or Taliban forces, at the time of the US intervention there. It has always been a wonder to me why nothing was ever said about the fact of such an 'adventure' being against Australian law, which it certainly appears to have been.

Belly, Saturday, 24 October 2009 3:37:57 AM:

Brian Howes was not trying to change the direction of the thread. It was me that announced that was happening in my post of Friday, 23 October 2009 at 9:44:52 AM, and effected that with my post of Friday, 23 October 2009 at 12:34:09 PM.

Pynchme Saturday, 24 October 2009 10:05:23 AM:

Brian Howes fully and explicitly dealt with your question 1. in his post of Friday, 23 October 2009 at 8:59:22 PM. The issues being raised in this thread are by nature demanding of precision, not only in the answering, but in the asking of questions. It seems you have read some assertion somewhere that contradicts his direct statement that there was no 'discreet packaging' of items he supplied. It would be helpful if you posted a link to the page containing the assertion in question. The posting of links does not contribute as much toward the word count of a post as do words in the text thereof, if that is a concern.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Saturday, 24 October 2009 4:00:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Forrest Gumpp: << Its repetition that smears. >>

I wouldn't have needed to repeat the question if Howes had given a straight answer the first time I asked it. His destination when he left Arkansas is irrelevant, but I was intrigued by his claim that no crime had been committed. There's clearly more to that story, but I agree that it's not relevant to the issue of the charges he faces concerning selling precursor chemicals for methamphetamine production in the USA.

I've now formed the view that this guy is on the nose, so I won't be participating in this thread again unless something startling is posted. Others will, of course, draw their own conclusions.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 24 October 2009 5:10:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The issue is this;it doesn't matter whether Brian Howles is innocent or guilty.It is the mechanism of terrorism leglisation that can convict both the guilty and innocent is the salient point.

There has to be due process that examines all the detail and this terrorism leglislation takes this right from every individual.

Now which type of totalitarian state do we want to reside in?Chinese,Russian or Western,heralded by BS terrorism?
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 24 October 2009 7:44:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I too am leaving the thread but first Fractelle, truly wish you the best.
Brian you old word smith, you DID NOT ANSWER the question.
You avoided answering it with deft words.
Truth can indeed be found in written words as well as body language.
Forrest Gumpp well respected as you are I see we disagree again but that is both our rights.
Brian, read your replies to C J M questions.
Read C J Morgans last post, tell me I am wrong to think you convicted yourself here.
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 25 October 2009 3:24:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Fractelle

Warm thoughts and good wishes are sent your way, from all of us I'm sure. This place is never the same without you, so take good care of yourself. Keep well and keep posting. :)

Love Bronwyn
Posted by Bronwyn, Sunday, 25 October 2009 10:27:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Forrest Gumpp, I'm sorry to be so tenacious about this when you are just helping a mate out. I admire your loyalty and other attributes; forgive me. I can't accept the inadequate answers provided by Mr. Howes.

So I went looking and I reread the indictment, which in part says:

d. KNO3 advertised that it offered “discreet delivery” and customers often asked for discreet packaging in their comments submitted along with their order for chemicals.
f. KNO3 shipped orders to its customers with incorrect and misleading labelling as to the contents of the package being sent, including labelling on Red Phosphorus indicating it was “red metal for iron works” and labelling on Iodine indicating it was “Iodine for Medical Use.”
g. KNO3 frequently received and shipped orders from customers that included requests for both Red Phosphorus and Iodine together.
s. [details of an order for Red Phosphorus and Iodine] .... Written on the package’s customs declaration sticker was “red metal for iron works.”

From a Chemistry hobbyist message board:

2005: “..."Buy today we ship today!" boasts the Web site. They also offer "Fast Discreet Delivery"
http://www.theunion.com/article/20050802/OPINION/108020096

2006: I'm suspicious of any company that offers instructions on getting RP from matchbooks. http://www.chemicalsman.com does this. It sounds like an extraction technique used by meth cooks.
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=2131&page=3

2006: KNO3.COM - How can customs check every order when they do not even open packages?
The only packages we even get back are because of address not correct. I will say it again we do not have any reason to report sales to the USA. Get Real! sales@kno3.com

Lots of warnings were issued on this message board including information when some labs had been busted. There’s quite a lot of interesting reading there: http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=2131
Posted by Pynchme, Sunday, 25 October 2009 3:39:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Despite helping people shift illicit substances through customs, I don't think you conspired as such (which I think has to be the case under the UN protocol); but I don't see how you could have not known that your chemicals would be used in drug cooking - 70 occasions I believe. I think you thought that your defence "... but it's legal in the UK" would confer immunity.

I also listened to all of your recordings. I'm sorry but IMO they do not help your case; possibly just the opposite.

Unless you have something more to say in explanation (Like why you would put on your site instructions on how to extract RP from match heads? - geez man did you think you were invincible? ); I won't be needing to post further.
Posted by Pynchme, Sunday, 25 October 2009 3:39:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme

d. KNO3 advertised that it offered “discreet delivery” and customers often asked for discreet packaging in their comments submitted along with their order for chemicals.
f. KNO3 shipped orders to its customers with incorrect and misleading labelling as to the contents of the package being sent, including labelling on Red Phosphorus indicating it was “red metal for iron works” and labelling on Iodine indicating it was “Iodine for Medical Use.”
g. KNO3 frequently received and shipped orders from customers that included requests for both Red Phosphorus and Iodine together.
s. [details of an order for Red Phosphorus and Iodine] .... Written on the package’s customs declaration sticker was “red metal for iron works.”

says "(Like why you would put on your site instructions on how to extract RP from match heads?"
End Pynchme comments.

Please explain as I have never given instructions to anybody to do this and to make it clear no website I owned or own has ever done so.

On the other hand for the same period the USDEA was running websites in our company name with our address selling the same chemicals as us and also the main ingredients and those sales have been put down to us.

but you would probably know that if you listened to all the conversations, the second on with Don Sherard of the USDEA.

D. Kno3 did not offer discreet delivery what is the evidence?

F. we did not mislabel packaging Iodine is for Medical use and Red Phosphorus is used in many application including metal works.

G. We did shop both chemicals together as they are both used in fireworks and science experiments, there is nothing unusual in that in the UK. We received 40,000 orders over 3 years fro mall over the world if a staff member and yes we had staff doing the packaging wrote a label incorrectly then it is entirely possible.

As for receiving request mislabel orders, We simply never shipped orders with requests of this kind.

Pynchme I do not feel invincible. nut nothing you have said has any evidential substance to it.
Posted by BrianHowes, Sunday, 25 October 2009 7:23:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brian,
your testimony here reads like something banal from a scandalous corporate transcript--like Kerry Packer without balls. Basically, you were doing it "the American way", or the Australian Way, like the AWB indiscretion. You should be applauded for your entrepreneurship.
If we are going to put you on trial, then the whole Western world should be on trial for breach of ethical conduct--only ever observed in the breach!
So the Howes are to be fall-guys for the "routine" indiscretions of our governments--our representatives--us. This is how we do penance in these enlightened times; ritual sacrifice--I feel better already. Forgive the hyperbole, but it is the ceremony that's important, the outcome can only redound to the credit of the offended prosecutor. It's all great PR for our spotless judiciaries, border protection, international trade and foreign policy.

We need to get over the guilt thing. Give the superegos a day off and put the Howes' Heinous crimes in context!
Ethics is for drones, mugs and ascetics---until it's common currency!
Good luck to you, Brian. At worst, you can write a bestseller while you're in the slammer for "our" sins.
I recommend "Crime and Punishment"---for comic relief.
Posted by Squeers, Sunday, 25 October 2009 8:18:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme,

You have no need to apologise to me for your tenacity in your post of Sunday, 25 October 2009 at 3:39:10 PM. Such tenacity is exactly what I was hoping for from you, and indeed others.

You have posted links. That gives everyone the ability to be 'on the same page', as the saying goes, with respect to running to earth claim and counter-claim in this matter.

The problem for all of us, Brian Howes included, starts with the indictment.

That problem is: which indictment? Can you post the link, or point it out if it has already been posted somewhere in the thread already, to the indictment to which you are referring, as Brian Howes advises me that there have been several successive indictments, and the allegations of those indictments have been changing all the time.

Just the other day, for example, in a Twitter DM to him I asked about the apparently uninitialled manuscript alteration to the date of an indictment-related declaration shown in this link: http://bit.ly/1EgXuL . The link is from somewhere on Brian Howes' website http://extradition.org.uk , and is to a document titled 'declaration-of-ann-birmingham-scheel.pdf ', which is a 218.2KB file, dated either 22 or 26 May 2009.

The un-initialled alteration to the date is immediately below the concluding sentence of the declaration, which reads: "I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct." Not exactly a confidence-inspiring juxtaposition of written artifacts in a document dealing with such a serious matter. Brian Howes had not noticed this potentially serious purported alteration of the declaration date, and on revision of the document noticed yet more changes to the reasons for which his extradition is being sought.

As to Brian Howes being a mate, Pynchme, I have never met him. I only first became aware of his situation through the Twitter campaign he and some supporters are running, in the manner described in this post:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3093#73257

I have to extend to him the presumption of innocence.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Monday, 26 October 2009 8:20:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A reposted post.








"Well I suppose if you're going to embark on an international campaign defending the interests of confessed and alleged paedophiles and alleged purveyors of precursor chemicals, you're bound to attract the attention of those agencies that are combating those reprehensible activities.

Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 25 October 2009 9:02:30 AM"







Reposted to the thread to which it appears to belong as a courtesy.

It was originally posted to the Technical Support topic 'How secure is your internet from eaves dropping?', see:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3156#74626

As it seemed to have nothing to do with the technical aspects of online privacy and security, I assumed it was inadvertently posted there when perhaps it was meant to be posted here. I hope that assumption does not make an ass of me.

Like I say, as a courtesy.

PS. Thanks for the idea of an international campaign. I hadn't thought of that. I'll try and do something about that right away. Watch these spaces!

PPS. I haven't asked GrahamY to remove the seeming misposting on the TS thread, just in case you really did mean to post it there; the thread not being mine in any case it is only courtesy to leave any such request to BrianHowes who started the discussion. Whilst it contributes little to that discussion, it does no real harm, either.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Tuesday, 27 October 2009 8:33:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The indictment to which I referred:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/15982322/USA-v-BRIAN-HOWES-and-KERRY-ANN-SHANKS-3-Indictment

- which was posted by CJ earlier in the thread.

The links to your phone conversations with various people such as DEA
investigators:

http://extradition.org.uk/

I HAD listened to them all; I listened to a few of them again. The dates on them are not clear - but I am guessing they occurred some time after the indictment was formulated? If so, then their "shop front" operation occurred after Mr. Howes had been notified that his goods were supplying meth cooks (which is an offence in the UK too isn't it?) and had agreed not to continue sending goods to the US; and after the indictment had been written.

This article is dated 2005 - before the indictment:

http://www.theunion.com/article/20050802/OPINION/108020096

The links on this message board, dated Dec 2005 (includes comments I posted before) - still take us to Mr. Howes' site, on which information about Mr. Howes' plight is accumulated:

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=2131&page=3

Anyway, there are the various links as requested.

In the end one has to wonder why the necessary registration and paperwork required by the US wasn't just done.
Posted by Pynchme, Thursday, 29 October 2009 12:31:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Courtesy of the facility that is OLO, the pieces are all starting to fall together in Brian Howes' 'Extradition without evidence from the UK / US' saga. I have been communicating with Brian off-OLO, and I just happened to ask how come it was that Hew Griffiths, the Australian extradited in 2007 to the US in connection with alleged internet piracy offences, was showing up on the US Federal Bureau of Prisons website as having been released.

Brian Howes must have been able to research the background to my query, and informs me thus:



"Forrest. He got early release.

http://brianhowes.files.wor...

Extradited Australian Ringleader Gets 51 Months for Software Piracy
On June 22, 2007 in Alexandria, VA, Hew Raymond Griffiths
was sentenced to 51 months in prison for crimes committed as leader
of one of the oldest and most renowned Internet software piracy groups
worldwide, known as “Drink Or Die.” From his home in Australia,
Griffiths violated the criminal copyright laws of the United States
by leading this criminal group which caused the illegal reproduction
and distribution of more than $50 million worth of software, movies, games and music.

This was one of the first-ever extraditions for an intellectual property offense."




It was at this point that everything came together for Brian. What is about to come shows the power and evil of press censorship in the UK today. (CJMorgan, as an aspirant Australian polititionist-supremacist, particularly take note.) Brian went on to explain in this general manner:




"Now this!

There is a Section 11 No Reporting Notice issued to the British press
on Allan Ellis who ran Oink.cd and now I know why. The anti-piracy operation
is not run by UK and Dutch authorities as has been claimed, but is just part
of an ongoing US operation that has resulted in 50 people having been
imprisoned already, over 200 raids as of last year, and over 30 download sites
having been taken down or converted for US use in collecting details of
down-loaders and up-loaders."




The plot thickens. Wait till you see what comes next!

TBC
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Friday, 30 October 2009 12:25:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continued

Brian Howes goes on to explain:




"Now I know why Allan Ellis, arrested in my home town
in early 2008 has not came to trial yet. Five of the down-loaders
did come to trial in Middlesbrough, UK, but did not get prison
sentences, as I researched and broke a story about Cleveland
police breaching copyright laws themselves.

I wonder what the ethics is of the UK and Dutch governments
saying it it their operation when it is being ran for the US?
Allan Ellis is still on bail here in the UK, so I wonder is there
going to be another US extradition request."




Here is the link to the story Brian Howes was responsible for breaking:

http://bit.ly/476wL3

We have here not a story about (lawful in the UK) supply into the US of alleged precursor chemicals for crystal meth labs, nor an unsubstantiated but seemingly government-sponsored smearing of a person sought for extradition with inferences of kiddy-fiddling, but one about the criminalization of intellectual property offences and the toadying use of the UK police force to enforce US intellectual property rights.

The whole thing looks to be a right royal fit-up of Brian Howes.

A disgraceful payback for putting egg on the face of the Cleveland, UK, police force, with the active connivance of persons within the USDEA. The first raids on Brian Howes' home were not until after he had made these revelations, his alleged involvement in supplying meth labs not 'discovered' until computers seized courtesy of lawfully questionable searches of his premises,revealed his dealings. Those computers all now in Arizona, where you could be quite confident that any insufficiency in 'evidence' residing upon hard drives has been rectified.

The evil of the UK press censorship residing in the fact of it having prevented Brian Howes from connecting the Griffiths extradition from Australia to the 'Oink.cd' matter, and having prevented the public from working out for itself that these cases are all about intellectual property rights enforcement by the US, criminalizing people along the way.




SHAME!
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Friday, 30 October 2009 2:20:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Forrest I'm sorry - I appreciate your loyalty and passion, but I'm concerned now about your gullibility.

The conspiracy and victimization that you've somehow come to perceive doesn't fit with the actual timing of events. You're saying aren't you that Mr. Howes is being victimized for causing embarrassment to the coppers in 2008.

Yet charges of child sexual abuse (of which there charges of several incidents which were reported by a teacher in the US; investigated by police there and upheld in the UK.) precede the oink biz. Btw we are not referring to a random case of "kiddy fiddling" - which so minimizes a serious offence, but repeated sexual abuse of Mr. Howe's own daughter - Jenna). The child sexual abuse charges are relevant to the current case in a few matters - (1) Reasons for moving to Scotland and (2) Mr. Howes' credibility (3) The Howes have put forward family responsibilities as an argument against extradition; therefore bringing scrutiny of parental conduct towards their children into relevancy re: extradition.

The time frame also doesn't fit with the sales, detection and other events concerning meth labs and such. For example, the JUDGEMENT OF SHERIFF ISABELLA GARDEN McCOLL (2008) refers to matters beginning in 2004 and in 2006 the Indictment of the Grand Jury of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona against the respondents: Sept 27 and arrest warrants; also 2006. These things precede the 2008 story for which you provided a link.

Please read (inc Sec 71)

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/DOC1.html
Posted by Pynchme, Saturday, 31 October 2009 12:32:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme,

Thank you for the pains you have gone to in researching some of the background to this matter. Your post is evidence of this.

Let's be very clear about two things. First, such 'loyalty and passion' as I display is not so much to Brian Howes (whom I have never met, outside of the present online context) as to long established features of our British legal and constitutional heritage, such as are epitomised by the provisions in relation to Habeus Corpus for example, in restraint upon executive authority being empowered to hold persons in custody without charge. Second, as to gullibility, that would, as a criticism, seem to be more applicable to the majority in the UK Parliament that voted the passage of the Extradition Act 2003 (UK), one that has seemingly seen no shame in throwing a proud thousand-year history in the form of some of the provisions of Magna Carta onto the rubbish heap at the expense of the whole British public.




Brian and Kerry Howes were each held in custody for 214 days WITHOUT CHARGE!




Being facile, we could rationalize away that little awkwardness by saying that what they were held in custody for was not an offence within the UK, so therefore there could be no charges. Of course everbody knows it is for conspiracy to knowingly supply methamphetamine precursor chemicals into the US that they have been held for around three years now, and because the Extradition Act is so spinelessly one-sided to the detriment of the rights of UK citizens, that that detention, without charge, speedy trial, or conviction is OK.

Yet as a consequence of the libelous smear perpetrated by the Sunday Mail article of 21 June 2009, (http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/uk-and-international-news/2009/06/21/drugs-probe-extradition-scot-accused-of-sex-attacks-on-six-year-old-girl-78057-21459748/ ) some of the 'high-minded' of OLO seem to think it appropriate to abort the Howes' right to natural justice in the form of at least an extradition hearing.

Pynchme, know it or not, you've just given the key to why the case must be heard in Australia!
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Saturday, 31 October 2009 11:55:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme,

There are several layers to this saga.

The first is that of the ostensible reason for the extradition. That's the crystal meth stuff; all kicked off, it would seem, in consequence of a series of dodgy search warrants obtained and executed by Cleveland (UK) police in 2004.

The second is the underlying reason for extradition being sought, that of the policing of US vested interest intellectual property rights no matter what the cost, or damage to due process, that may be occasioned.

The third is that of the routine use of smearing accusations implying pedophilia on the part of accused persons as a tool of policy implementation by elements within, or ultimate beneficiaries of, the administration of US justice with respect to the policing of intellectual property rights.

You will note that the libelous Sunday Mail article in question makes the statement, in its second sentence, that "Dad-of-seven Brian Howes will face charges over the alleged abuse if he is ordered to go to America." Yet no mention of this charge forms any part of any indictment based upon which his extradition is requested. It is interesting to see the smear seemingly mirrored, or endorsed, in section 71 of the http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/DOC1.html link you provided of the Crown advocate's submission to Sheriff McColl. It would be even more interesting to be able to read paragraph 27 of Judge Bryant's judgment upon which your claim that "[allegations of child sexual abuse were] investigated by police there [in the US] and upheld in the UK" is seemingly based. It would seem the general context of Judge Bryant's summing up was one of dismissal of charges, or aquital, as such ever related to Brian Howes.

Could it be that the attempt at extradition is the outcome of what amounts to a prolonged malicious prosecution? Such could indeed have been instigated privately, progressively involving along the way both US and UK justice administration officials, in what may well amount to one, or more, conspiracies to pervert the course of justice.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Saturday, 31 October 2009 6:22:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The case, such as it may be, against the Howes', unless sooner dismissed or abandoned by the US Department of Justice, should be tried in Australia for the following reasons:



There can be no question of any hidden agenda with respect to child sexual abuse existing within the Australian administration of justice, as the allegations libelously bandied about in the UK by the Sunday Mail with (dis)respect to Brian Howes relate to events which, if they occurred at all, occurred in the US, not Australia.

There is virtually no possibility that any Australian law enforcement official has facilitated any malicious prosecution of the Howes' to date, whereas that questionmark does hang over some UK and US officials.

The US has publicly stated that the knowing supply of methamphetamine precursor chemicals into the Australian drug 'market' was effected by the Howes' through their chemical supply business. The US has likewise claimed that criminal intelligence passed on to Australian authorities resulted in action that closed at least one crystal meth lab in Australia. It is thus the case that the criminal conspiracy of which the Howes' stand accused, and for which is the stated reason their extradition to the US is sought, also extended to Australia.

The UK government has represented the operation conducted with respect to the 'Oink.cd' distribution of music downloads in breach of copyright, an operation the subject of Section 11 reporting restrictions in the UK, as being a joint Dutch-UK initiative, when in fact it appears to have been part of an ongoing US operation. Brian Howes' blowing of the whistle with respect to numerous police forces within the UK not having proper licenses for music those forces themselves use, whilst at the same time facilitating a US operation using UK police to effectively enforce copyright, creates an obvious motive for the ongoing perversion of the course of justice in anything touching upon his case.



Only within Australia would it appear that there is any chance of a fair hearing for the Howes'. They have requested extradition to this end themselves.

Why not do it?
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Sunday, 1 November 2009 9:23:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The fundamental insincerity of the US extradition request for the Howes' is revealed in the US willingness to offer the 'plea bargain' that the request for Kerry Howes will be dropped if Brian agrees to extradition. If it was truly conspiracy to supply meth labs in the US with precursor chemicals for which the Howes are being sought, it is just not credible that the DOJ would exclude Kerry from its demands in such circumstances.



No, the USDOJ is after Brian Howes alone for something other than supply of precursor chemicals, the grounds stated in its extradition request. There seem, to my mind, to exist three possibilities as to what is the real reason for the extradition.



The first is that the DOJ is after him in connection with child sexual abuse allegations. We can exclude this almost instantaneously, as if the US had the slightest credible evidence against Brian Howes in this respect it would have put such right up front in its extradition request. It clearly has no credible evidence to present.

The second is that Brian Howes has at some time been seen as some sort of threat to the upholding of US intellectual property rights. Presumably such 'threat' would derive from his expertise as a computer engineer. However, if he had actually done something similar to Hew Griffiths in violating copyright, surely evidence would have been collected against him during the progress of Operation Buccaneer, and his extradition been sought accordingly.

The third is that Brian Howes has been the target of an essentially private and malicious prosecution. A fit-up job. Logic dictates that such malicious prosecution is likely to have arisen out of Brian Howes' having reported the occurrence of drug dealing near to where he was living to the police in 2001. It is apparent that some sort of ongoing contention with elements within the Cleveland police force developed out of this initial responsible action of his in dobbing-in drug dealing.



Presumably, corrupt persons within that UK force privately arranged for the USDEA to be able to collect 'evidence' against Brian Howes.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Monday, 2 November 2009 6:26:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy