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!

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.

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?

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.