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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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