Poor Gary Mckinnon

[nomadrush]

It may only be a matter of days now before one of the biggest breaches of human rights in recent years takes place. Abu Hamza a known terroist stays here in the UK whilst Gary McKinnon is extradited!

Our government is throwing one of it's own citizens to the lions and turninga blind eye to a massive injustice.

Whether Gary is guilty or not, he does NOT deserve the potential 70 YEARS in prison he is being threatened with in the USA.

His "crime" was committed from a house in North London and therefore he should be tried HERE int he UK.

We are not letting this rest, we have been writing to everyone, MP's, the Mayor of London, The Home Secretary, Obama, McCain and even celebrities in the hope someone will stand up and speak for this young man with Ashbergers Syndrome.

Don't give up everyone, the battle is not yet lost!

Ross Hemsworth
http://www.nowthatsweird.co.uk

[murnut]

Originally Posted by nomadrush

It may only be a matter of days now before one of the biggest breaches of human rights in recent years takes place. Abu Hamza a known terroist stays here in the UK whilst Gary McKinnon is extradited!

Our government is throwing one of it's own citizens to the lions and turninga blind eye to a massive injustice.

Whether Gary is guilty or not, he does NOT deserve the potential 70 YEARS in prison he is being threatened with in the USA.

His "crime" was committed from a house in North London and therefore he should be tried HERE int he UK.

We are not letting this rest, we have been writing to everyone, MP's, the Mayor of London, The Home Secretary, Obama, McCain and even celebrities in the hope someone will stand up and speak for this young man with Ashbergers Syndrome.

Don't give up everyone, the battle is not yet lost!

Ross Hemsworth
http://www.nowthatsweird.co.uk

To be tried in the UK, would not the UK have to actually charge him?

To date the UK has not charged Gary.

His offense was not committed against the UK.

Based on Us sentencing guidelines, I doubt he gets more than 2 or 3 years....max 5.

How come many of you are against Gary cutting a plea bargain arrangement?

He was offered 6 mos in the US prison and the remain 18 in the UK.

He turned it down?

Why?

[murnut]

18. Mr Stein confirmed that he was authorised to offer the appellant a deal in return for not contesting extradition and for agreeing to plead guilty to two of the counts laid against him of “fraud and related activity in connection with computers". On this basis it was likely that a sentence of 3-4 years (more precisely 37-46 months), probably at the shorter end of that bracket, would be passed and that after serving 6-12 months in the US, the appellant would be repatriated to complete his sentence in the UK. In this event his release date would be determined by reference to the UK’s remission rules namely, in the case of a sentence not exceeding four years, release at the discretion of the parole board after serving half the nominal sentence, release as of right at the two-thirds point. On that basis, he might serve a total of only some eighteen months to two years.

19. The predicted sentence of 3-4 years was based upon sentencing guidelines themselves based upon a points system. The prosecution would recommend to the court a particular points level which the court would be likely to accept. Similarly the prosecutor would recommend to the section of the US Department of Justice responsible for administering the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons that the appellant be transferred and this recommendation too was in practice likely to be accepted.

20. If, however, the appellant chose not to cooperate, and were then extradited and convicted, he might expect to receive a sentence of 8-10 years, possibly longer, and would not be repatriated to the UK for any part of it. He would accordingly serve the whole sentence in a US prison (possibly high security) with at best some 15% remission.

21. Mr Lawson clearly recalls the prospect of repatriation being stated to depend upon the appellant’s application for transfer being supported by the prosecution. If the support were withheld as it would be if extradition was contested, there was said to be no prospect of repatriation, a refusal by the Department of Justice being unreviewable in the US courts.

22. The proposed “deal” was conditional upon the appellant entering into a form of Plea Agreement, a lengthy document including the provision in para 4 that:

“the defendant is aware that the defendant’s sentence will be imposed in accordance with the Sentencing Guidelines and Policy Statements. The defendant is aware that the Court has jurisdiction and authority to impose any sentence within the statutory maximum set for the offense (s) to which the defendant pleads guilty. The defendant is aware that the Court has not yet determined a sentence. The defendant is also aware that any estimate of the probable sentencing range under the sentencing guidelines that the defendant may have received from the defendant’s counsel, the United States, or the probation office, is a prediction, not a promise, and is not binding on the United States, the probation office, or the Court. The United States makes no promise or representation concerning what sentence the defendant will receive, and the defendant cannot withdraw a guilty plea based upon the actual sentence.”

The Plea Agreement included a further term in para 12 that the US Attorney’s Offices respectively for the Eastern District of Virginia and the District of New Jersey “will not oppose the defendant’s application to transfer any sentence imposed by the Court made pursuant to the Council of Europe Convention".


23. Subsequent to the Divisional Court’s judgment but prior to Mr Lawson’s statement an affidavit was sworn by Robert Wiechering on behalf of the US Attorney’s Offices for both districts stating that they “will not oppose any prisoner transfer application that may be made by Gary McKinnon (if extradited and convicted) based, in whole or in part, on his refusal to waive or consent to extradition from the United Kingdom.”

24. Following the meeting of 14 April 2003 Ms Todner took advice from an American defense lawyer and, subsequently, the appellant declined the “deal".


http://www.publications.parliament.u...0/mckinn-1.htm

[murnut]

According to the House of Lords decision above, the plea agreement was in writing.


Disinfo from Gary?

Ya don't say.

Should I list all of the inaccuracies coming from Gary's supporters?

[anonypony]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...83962361&hl=en

[murnut]

Originally Posted by anonypony

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...83962361&hl=en

All of this to get Gary?

Maybe it is what it is, ....Gary got caught.


Is it in Gary's best interest to make a plea arrangement, or go to trial?

[nomadrush]

You're missing the whole point here....#

The alleged "crime" was committed from a house in North London and that means that under British law he should be tried and sentenced if found guilty, in the UK, that is not up for dispute it's a fact of British law.

Despite Gary initially pleading guilty, the Crown Prosecution Service failed to make a strong enough case to go to court, therefore had the US not enforced the terms of a very one-sided extradition treaty signed by a BLIND home secretary, he would probably have walked free by now, or got away with a Police caution.

Under US law each indictment carries a possible sentence of 10 years and there are as I understand it seven charges. These will not run concurrently under US law, but back to back. So my understanding is a possible sentence of 70 years!!!

If Gary is extradited and sentenced, it will set a very dangerous precedent for all British citizens who can then be shipped out whenever Uncle Sam demands.

In the UK, a British citizen is "innocent until proven guilty" and that does not appear to be happening here!

Ross Hemsworth
http://www.nowthatsweird.co.uk
English and Proud of it!

[murnut]

I understand your point.


No hacker has ever gotten any sentence more than 10 years in the States.



I am sorry that Gary's appeals to the courts of the UK and Europe have failed.

But the 70 year thing is an exaggeration,

More disinfo from Gary's team include, but not limited to.

Gary is being tried as an enemy combatant....NOT

Gary faces the death penalty.....NOT

Gary is going to Guantanamo.....NOT

I am sorry Gary did these acts without considering the consequences.

I am sure that many have committed acts thinking the punishment would be one thing, only to find out it is another.

Why is Gary not responsible for his own actions?

If you read the house of Lords decision, it is unlikely Gary get more than 8 to 10 years.

Yes Gary is entitled to his day in court.

But if found guilty, he faces the maximum time.

This is the same for all defendants.

Some are offered plea bargains, some are not.

Gary was offered a fair plea bargain, and he turned it down.

Are the Ptb responsible for this?

Is Gary not responsible for his own actions?

Did you read the House of Lords Decision?

My question is, why do so many want Gary to go to trial, against his best interest?

If 6 month plea bargain was offered again, 6mos usa minimum security jail, and 18 mos uk jail, would we be encouraging him to take the deal, or go to trial?

[draconine]

“US foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism these days . . . It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand down on September 11 last year . . . I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels . . .” “

That pretty much closes the case. I believe that Gary broke into the most classified computer networks on earth only with the best of intentions. And perhaps this whole case is just to show what happens when you break into such places... but Gary is an adult and should have been prepared for this possibility, or shouldn't have been hacking in the first place.

[murnut]

Originally Posted by nomadrush

Under US law each indictment carries a possible sentence of 10 years and there are as I understand it seven charges. These will not run concurrently under US law, but back to back. So my understanding is a possible sentence of 70 years!!!

If Gary is extradited and sentenced, it will set a very dangerous precedent for all British citizens who can then be shipped out whenever Uncle Sam demands.

In the UK, a British citizen is "innocent until proven guilty" and that does not appear to be happening here!

Ross Hemsworth
http://www.nowthatsweird.co.uk
English and Proud of it!

20. If, however, the appellant chose not to cooperate, and were then extradited and convicted, he might expect to receive a sentence of 8-10 years, possibly longer, and would not be repatriated to the UK for any part of it. He would accordingly serve the whole sentence in a US prison (possibly high security) with at best some 15% remission.

Gary has not had a trial yet on the US charges., the trial occurs , and evidence is presented.

The extradition trial has occurred, and Gary lost .

[nomadrush]

Originally Posted by murnut

20. If, however, the appellant chose not to cooperate, and were then extradited and convicted, he might expect to receive a sentence of 8-10 years, possibly longer, and would not be repatriated to the UK for any part of it. He would accordingly serve the whole sentence in a US prison (possibly high security) with at best some 15% remission.

Gary has not had a trial yet on the US charges., the trial occurs , and evidence is presented.

The extradition trial has occurred, and Gary lost .

The Law Lords got this wrong as they took this to mean the indictments would if found guilty, run concurrently. This has been a well-publicised balls-up by the Lords.

The trial has NOT taken place, we have only heard the presentations as to why Gary should not be extradited.

In my opinion, there has been a major cover-up here, no real press attention and no-one daring to stand-up up to the Americans and saying NO you can't have him ,he will be tried here!

It makes me wonder if amongst the stuff Gary allegedly downloaded, there may be some evidence so damaging, that the US do not want it presented as evidence in a UK courtroom for all to see????

Ross

[murnut]

What hacker has gotten 70 years?

What hacker has gotten more than 10?

Most are under 5.

Many plead out to less than 2.

In order for Gary to be tried in the UK, the UK would have to charge him.

This has not happened.

Besides, the UK does not evidence of a crime committed against the UK.

Gary should have hacked the UK military network.

For all of Gary's efforts, he in fact has no proof of anything he claims.

If he had any real proof, we would have never of heard of him, he would have been "heart attacked"

It goes against logic that the Ptb would want this out in the open don't you think?

It goes against logic that the biggest secret in the history of mankind would be available to common hackers.

Since Gary decided he did not like his potential punishment, he has been "selling" his story.

You bought it.

But there is little reality in it.... In my opinion.

[Bill Ryan]

Hi, Murmut:

We'll always welcome intelligent, well-informed passion here, but regardless of your passion to criticize Gary, and your presumed intelligence, you don't seem to be well-informed.

I've not yet read every post of yours here, but I believe I get the gist. You've certainly got your teeth into this for some reason that is not clear to me.

As best I know, Gary has never personally made any of the claims (re his legal situation) that you seem to be assigning to him. These are the conjectures of other pundits in the UFO community.

Gary is legally prohibited from using a computer. He can't even send an e-mail himself. He does not post on any forums. He does not manage his own website. As best I understand, his mother, Janis, does that.

It's legitimate to debate the interesting issues, but not to criticize him personally. That's way out of order. It sounds as if you've never seen a single interview he gave, which is puzzling because I assume you would have informed yourself well before posting.

As a separate issue, Gary has no proof of anything which he saw or read on screen. He was using a dial-up modem and was not able to download anything (although I believe he did try, but it took too long.) He readily admits he broke the law.

I have two questions:

1) Can you help us understand where you're coming from?

2) (as Einstein would have called a thought experiment) - If Gary was here, what would you like to ask him? (Between us, we MAY be able to answer fairly on his behalf.)

Very best wishes, Bill

[JoinTheFun]

I would like to ask him if he holds any bargaining chips.

[King Lear]

I would ask him:
If he, or another one could make sketches of what he saw.

But probably, that only will happen after his trial.

[Bill Ryan]

Originally Posted by JoinTheFun

I would like to ask him if he holds any bargaining chips.

As best I know, he doesn't... except that Dan Burisch and Marci McDowell have stated that they will testify under penalty of perjury about the details of the secret space program - if called to do so.

That's a real wild card that might actually cut both ways... it COULD mean that it never goes to trial (i.e. gets delayed forever).

To King Lear's question: the only images he saw, as best I recall, were 'unairbrushed' lunar photos. They were clearly in two folders: the original images, and the same images when 'treated'. [My paraphrase - I don't recall what Gary said the folder names were.]

He found one original and was trying to download it on his 56k modem, but was interrupted and never completed the download. It was a very large file.

Very best, Bill

[King Lear]

Originally Posted by Bill Ryan

To King Lear's question: the only images he saw, as best I recall, were 'unairbrushed' lunar photos. They were clearly in two folders: the original images, and the same images when 'treated'. [My paraphrase - I don't recall what Gary said the folder names were.]

Dear Bill,
I don't rember if it was in your interview or the others he gave on tv, but he mentioned to have seen a kind of space station, of that he was pretty much sure that it wasn't earth-made.


Something like that:

[murnut]

Originally Posted by Bill Ryan

Hi, Murmut:

We'll always welcome intelligent, well-informed passion here, but regardless of your passion to criticize Gary, and your presumed intelligence, you don't seem to be well-informed.

I've not yet read every post of yours here, but I believe I get the gist. You've certainly got your teeth into this for some reason that is not clear to me.

As best I know, Gary has never personally made any of the claims (re his legal situation) that you seem to be assigning to him. These are the conjectures of other pundits in the UFO community.

Gary is legally prohibited from using a computer. He can't even send an e-mail himself. He does not post on any forums. He does not manage his own website. As best I understand, his mother, Janis, does that.

It's legitimate to debate the interesting issues, but not to criticize him personally. That's way out of order. It sounds as if you've never seen a single interview he gave, which is puzzling because I assume you would have informed yourself well before posting.

As a separate issue, Gary has no proof of anything which he saw or read on screen. He was using a dial-up modem and was not able to download anything (although I believe he did try, but it took too long.) He readily admits he broke the law.

I have two questions:

1) Can you help us understand where you're coming from?

2) (as Einstein would have called a thought experiment) - If Gary was here, what would you like to ask him? (Between us, we MAY be able to answer fairly on his behalf.)

Very best wishes, Bill

Hi Bill

Great site you have here.

I am a great admirer of what you and Kerry have done, are doing, and will do.

By the way...it is murNut, with an N.

I am disappointed that you would make a comment about me being uninformed, without reading my other posts.

I hope that Gary does as little time as possible, or none at all.

I don't think this is likely though.

If you would read some of my other posts on this matter, you would see that my main criticism is of Gary's supporters...speaking it would seem on his behalf.


I don't believe the ends justifies the means.

Some here do.

The circle must be broken, IMO, other wise how are we any different than those we despise?

I do have some problems, with some of the misinformation that has been floated by those that have identified themselves as Gary supporters.

Gary is not a terrorist, and was offered a fair plea arrangement in my opinion.

He declined, and this is his right.

If the issue is that the UK should not allow Gary to be extradited, that is a different matter.

I have no real opinion...other than Gary has had his day in court, 3 times on this issue, and lost.

Are all of these judges in on the conspiracy to get Gary?

Yes, I have seen multiple interviews of Gary, and read many news accounts.

If I am being asked if I believe Gary is credible, no, sadly I don't.

I don't believe secret ufo/space files are on computer networks.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

The biggest secret in the history of the world on a network?

I just don't think it is logical to believe this is true.

I am not aware that I have criticized him personally.

Maybe I questioned some of his decisions?

I have no questions for Gary.

Many have posted that Gary is a hero.

I can't say I agree.

The ufo community has hero's that don't break the law.

What about those that break their security oath, you might say?

Who has been prosecuted for this?

Gary's supporter making wild claims, hurts the credibility of the ufo community as a whole.

I believe only the best cases, that have the best witnesses, with supporting documentation, should be the cases that are debated in the public.


I feel bad for Gary, but time to man up.

[anonypony]

Originally Posted by murnut

I don't believe the ends justifies the means.
Some here do.

Dear Murnut
You are of course entitled to believe anything you like, but that does not necessarily make it true or factual.

The fact is, as I have illustrated in an earlier post, the legal system in both the UK and the USA does not agree with your believe!

The courts on both side of the Atlantic have ruled on a number of occasions, that in some cases 'the end justifies the means'. I am afraid 'your believe' - does not come into it.

If you asked 'Does ANY cause ALWAYS justify ANY means'? I suspect the courts will say NO! But it seems, that when 'damage' to property - is the only injury, and the cause is to prevent, or expose an even bigger crime, the courts after considering the particular case and it's merits, do sometimes rule, that the ends justifies the means.

When you keep on insisting that YOUR believes are better or juster then others while your believes do not align with the law as it stands, you are in fact mirroring the behaviour you are attributing to those who don't agree with your views - 'the supporters'.

What we also need to bear in mind here, is that Gary admitted ONLY to un authorised access and ALWAYS denied the accusations of DAMAGE.

What happened to 'one is innocent until proven guilty'?

[King Lear]

I'm astonished of the manner how many energy murnut does expense on this thread.
Posting yards-long posts and ongoing to criticise Gary's behaviour and our understanding of law.

There are only a few explenations:
- He has to be a Neo-Con
- an Ex-CIA agent
- an Ex-NASA employee who's computer got hacked and "damaged" and he disgraced
- or he is just a guy who's banking account got hacked by Gary


And Yoda says:

The

Enter

Key,

he

seems

to

love,

young

Padawan.

[anonypony]

Originally Posted by King Lear

I'm astonished of the manner how many energy murnut does expense on this thread.
Posting yards-long posts and ongoing to criticise Gary's behaviour and our understanding of law.

There are only a few explenations:
- He has to be a Neo-Con
- an Ex-CIA agent
- an Ex-NASA employee who's computer got hacked and "damaged" and he disgraced
- or he is just a guy who's banking account got hacked by Gary

Or just the thought police paid to post?


In any case I am grateful, as I said before, it gives me an opportunity to talk about it taking it a point at a time...

[murnut]

Originally Posted by King Lear

I'm astonished of the manner how many energy murnut does expense on this thread.
Posting yards-long posts and ongoing to criticise Gary's behaviour and our understanding of law.

There are only a few explenations:
- He has to be a Neo-Con
- an Ex-CIA agent
- an Ex-NASA employee who's computer got hacked and "damaged" and he disgraced
- or he is just a guy who's banking account got hacked by Gary

I was responding to Bill Ryan.

He asked me to reply and I have.

I respect Bill and owed that to him.

I am none of the above.

Plea arrangements are never guaranteed, in the US, they must be approved by the court.

But they are approved as written, 99% of the time.

[anonypony]

Originally Posted by murnut

"I do have some problems, with some of the misinformation that has been floated by those that have identified themselves as Gary supporters.

Gary... was offered a fair plea arrangement in my opinion. He declined, and this is his right."...

Dear Murnut and all

Was it a fair plea?

The question of 'a fair plea' and the notion that it was guarantied in writing, something you repeat ad infini with an air of authority, is where you are grossly misinformed in my view.

I would be very interested if you could provide any documented EVIDENCE to support this claim. Quoting the House of Lords decision, is not sufficient. and here is why:

When Gary was offered the plea he was inclined to take it. However when he asked for all the promises offered, to be guarantied in writing, the prosecutors refused. Within the bundle of documents submitted to the courts, there is a letter from the prosecutors, which clearly states that they reserve the right to declare Gary a terrorist and reserve the right to prosecute and lock him up ‘tanamo style. This letter was part of the evidence submitted to the house of lords hearing, it was never refuted as authentic, and it was discussed as part of the hearing, but despite it all, there is no mention of it in the HL ruling.

With this information in mind what do you think - Is that a fair plea?

Can we trust this people?

Lets look at another similar case, that of Kevin David Mitnick - he was left to rot in jail for four and a half years pre-trial, until he agreed to a plea! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick

In other words there is a great chance, that there is never going to be any court case, UNLESS there is a guilty plea!

Should one plea if s/he did not do the crime they are accused of?

This is a huge question. What would you do? (question to all)

[murnut]

Originally Posted by anonypony

Dear Murnut and all

Was it a fair plea?

The question of 'a fair plea' and the notion that it was guarantied in writing, something you repeat ad infini with an air of authority, is where you are grossly misinformed in my view.

I would be very interested if you could provide any documented EVIDENCE to support this claim. Quoting the House of Lords decision, is not sufficient. and here is why:

When Gary was offered the plea he was inclined to take it. However when he asked for all the promises offered, to be guarantied in writing, the prosecutors refused. Within the bundle of documents submitted to the courts, there is a letter from the prosecutors, which clearly states that they reserve the right to declare Gary a terrorist and reserve the right to prosecute and lock him up ‘tanamo style. This letter was part of the evidence submitted to the house of lords hearing, it was never refuted as authentic, and it was discussed as part of the hearing, but despite it all, there is no mention of it in the HL ruling.

With this information in mind what do you think - Is that a fair plea?

Can we trust this people?

Lets look at another similar case, that of Kevin David Mitnick - he was left to rot in jail for four and a half years pre-trial, until he agreed to a plea! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick

In other words there is a great chance, that there is never going to be any court case, UNLESS there is a guilty plea!

Should one plea if s/he did not do the crime they are accused of?

This is a huge question. What would you do? (question to all)

Thanks for proving my point....he did 5 years...not 70.

Gary has admitted the hacking.

When I get a speeding ticket, I pay the fine

[murnut]

Originally Posted by anonypony

Lets look at another similar case, that of Kevin David Mitnick - he was left to rot in jail for four and a half years pre-trial, until he agreed to a plea! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick

Are you sure this is the case you want to use as an example?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_VYWefmy34