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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.