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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.