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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.