Poor Gary Mckinnon

[anonypony]

Does the cause justify the means

Murnut favourite point...

It might surprise you to learn, that on both sides of the Atlantic, courts have ruled that in particular cases - the cause does indeed justify the means. Particularly when the cause is preventing an even bigger crime from being committed.

I can point to a very recent (September 12, 2008) and relevant legal cases:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-26040,00.html

“LONDON: The fight for the planet has broken new ground, with a British jury acquitting environmental activists who caused more than pound stg. 35,000 ($76,000) worth of damage to a coal-fired power station.

In a decision that will send chills down corporate spines across Britain, the jury decided the dangers of global warming were so enormous that the Greenpeace campaigners were justified in trying to close down Kingsnorth power station in Kent.”

What Gary did, can be viewed in similar vain...

Which brings me to another of Murnut favourite argument - how can Dan and Marcia’s testimony help? Let me spell it out: If Gary’s defence centres around the principle as in the above case, Dan and Marcia’s testimonies could be highly relevant!

However this is not the time to relax...the ptb are already sorting out a precedent to negate this possibility in the future. This is very well highlighted in the following Newsweek Web Exclusive, about another recent and relevant court case, where the Justice Department has threatened to file criminal charges against a former top National Archives official if he testifies as a defence witness in a high-profile national security case. (For full story See below)

Best wishes
Anony Pony



Shut Your Mouth ... Or Else
Why are federal prosecutors threatening a government secrets expert?

Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Updated: 4:36 PM ET Sep 9, 2008
http://www.newsweek.com/id/158107

The Justice Department has threatened to file criminal charges against a former top National Archives official if he testifies as a defense witness in a high-profile national security case.

J. William Leonard, who resigned last January as the U.S. government's chief expert on classified information, after a bitter clash with Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has been cooperating with defense lawyers in a case charging two former officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) with improperly disclosing national security secrets, according to recently filed court papers.

The threat to file charges against Leonard—for allegedly violating federal ethics laws—was laid out by prosecutors in a public-court filing last spring, but got no public attention. In recent weeks, however, it has become the latest point of contention in a case that has generated enormous controversy in foreign policy and civil liberties circles.

The case charges that Steven Rosen, the former chief foreign policy aide at AIPAC, and Keith Weissman, the group's former chief Iran analyst, violated a World War I-era law, called the Espionage Act, when they allegedly passed along national security secrets to officials at the Israeli Embassy and to reporters. They had learned the alleged secrets in meetings with high-level government officials, including then national security adviser and now secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice. The two men are the first non-government officials ever to be prosecuted for disseminating "national defense information" under the law, raising concerns that others—including members of the news media—could ultimately face similar kinds of charges if the government's case is successful.

But the secret information Weissman and Rosen are being accused of passing along might not have been secret at all. Lawyers in the case told NEWSWEEK that, after reviewing a large volume of sealed evidence, Leonard was prepared to testify that the information at issue was either not properly classified or was already available from public sources, including newspaper accounts.

"This is a bizarre twist," said Steve Aftergood, a national security specialist for the Federation of American Scientists, who has followed the case closely. "If [Leonard] is right, not only are the defendants innocent, there was no crime."

As director of the National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office, Leonard was known as the government's "classification czar" because of his authority to enforce rules on the handling of classified information. He was also a strong critic of government classification practices, contending that far more information was branded "classified" (and therefore barred from public disclosure) than was justified.

But Justice Department prosecutors have aggressively struck back with an unusual maneuver to block Leonard from ever airing his views in court. After defense lawyers signaled their intention to use Leonard as an "expert witness," federal prosecutors filed a motion asserting that if Leonard appeared on the witness stand he could be criminally prosecuted under federal ethics laws.

The reason: Leonard had once briefly met with prosecutors on the AIPAC case when he still served in government. Therefore, the prosecutors now assert, he is covered by a federal ethics laws that bars former officials from appearing in court on behalf of a private party in any matter in which they had participated "personally and substantially" while they were in public office. "These ethics laws provide both criminal and civil penalties for violations," the prosecutors wrote in their motion. "Knowing violations of the law can be punished by not more than one year in jail and fine, and willful violations may be punished by up to five years in prison and fines." (A Justice Department official, who asked not to be identified, talking about an ongoing case, said that prosecutors did not view their motion as a threat, merely a statement of the applicable laws governing Leonard's cooperation with the defense lawyers.)

Defense attorneys and Leonard's lawyer, Mark Zaid, say the Justice Department's position is a stretch at best. Leonard never worked directly on the AIPAC case, they assert, and played no role in the decision to charge Rosen and Weissman with a crime. After the two men were indicted, government prosecutors met with Leonard for less than an hour in March 2006, to ask him if he would serve as a government witness to talk about the importance of protecting classified information. But when Leonard told them about the inconsistent ways in which national security information is classified, the prosecutors lost interest in using him as a witness and never contacted him again.

"It's an outrage" says Baruch Weiss, a defense lawyer representing Weissman, who is seeking to call Leonard as a witness in the case. "When they thought he might say what they wanted him to say, they said, 'Terrific.' When it turns out he's going to say something that is helpful to the defense, they say, "We're going to prosecute you for a crime.' I have never seen anything like this before."

Since then, defense lawyers have sought to subpoena Leonard, who, through his lawyer, Zaid, moved to squash the subpoena. The idea behind this legal back and forth was to force the judge in the case, T.S. Ellis III, to issue a ruling requiring Leonard to testify, thereby protecting him from criminal prosecution if he does. (Leonard had sought an ethics opinion from the Archives and was told he should seek a court ruling on the matter of his testimony.) There is no indication when Ellis might rule—or even when the AIPAC case might come to trial. Although it was scheduled to begin next month, lawyers say the date is certain to be moved back—most likely to next year—because of continued clashes over what national security secrets can be declassified and disclosed to the jury during the trial.

The case is being watched closely because of a decision by judge Ellis last year, in which he ruled that when the case does come to trial, current and former high- level government officials, including, Rice; former undersecretary of defense Douglas Feith; and former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage; must testify about their own conversations with the two former AIPAC lobbyists. The defense lawyers have said they want to call them and other high-level current and former Bush administration officials as witnesses. The lawyers want to show that the kind of conversations Bush officials had with the AIPAC lobbyists (about Mideast issues, including the terrorist ties of the Iranian government) were common.

This isn't the first time Leonard has been the center of controversy. Leonard become embroiled in a bitter dispute with Cheney's chief of staff, David Addington, when he sought to conduct a mandatory inspection of the vice president's office to determine if it was complying with an executive order governing the handling of classified information. Addington refused to provide Leonard's aides with access, claiming that the vice president's office was not covered by the executive order because, technically speaking, Cheney was not part of the executive branch. Addington argued that, under the Constitution, the only official function of the vice president was to preside over the Senate so therefore Cheney was really part of the legislative branch. When Leonard challenged Addington's creative argument and sought an official Justice Department legal ruling on the matter, Addington sent an e-mail suggesting that Leonard's office (and his job) be abolished. The dispute, which was made public last year by House Government Reform committee chairman Rep. Henry Waxman, created an uproar [http://www.newsweek.com/id/81883/page/1]. Ultimately, Leonard told NEWSWEEK, it was a "contributing factor" in his decision to resign after 34 years of government service.

Terror Watch appears weekly on Newsweek.com

[Citizen Zeitgeist]

If Gary issued a Notice of Understanding and Intent & Claim of Right, stating that he revokes his consent to be governed as a corporate entity, it would be illegal for the US to extradite him, as they are doing so under the jurisdiction of Commercial Law, which relies upon his contractual consent.

Peace, freedom, love and light,

Citizen Zeitgeist
http://www.freetheplanet.info

[anonypony]

Originally Posted by Citizen Zeitgeist

If Gary issued a Notice of Understanding and Intent & Claim of Right, stating that he revokes his consent to be governed as a corporate entity, it would be illegal for the US to extradite him, as they are doing so under the jurisdiction of Commercial Law, which relies upon his contractual consent.

Peace, freedom, love and light,

Citizen Zeitgeist
http://www.freetheplanet.info

Many thanks for that, it sounds interesting...

Can you tell us some more about the 'Notice of Understanding and Intent & Claim of Right, stating that one revokes his consent to be governed as a corporate entity' what it is, how it can be used, and if used what follows.

Could you point to references that expand it and maybe to other cases where this was used.

Best Wishes
Anony Pony

[Citizen Zeitgeist]

When blessed living souls are incarnated as Human Beings on Planet Earth, they are almost always registered with the government of the country of their physical birth. Undisclosed to the parents is the knowledge that each new born is then allocated a bond number and a trust account with the IMF, valued at what they perceive to be our financial worth over the course of an average lifetime of tax-paying enslavement. This transaction is known as the Security of the Person and is bought and sold on various securities exchanges by the international banksters.

Each Human Being is worth the value of the country’s resources divided by the population at the time of their birth. This method is used by all members of the IMF to securitise interest payments, on what is commonly known as the ‘national debt'. This system has been created for the dual purposes of perpetuating the power and wealth of the international banksters, controlling governments and enslaving the rest of us with a debt that can never be repaid. Since all credit that is created out of nothing adds to the balance it is supposed to reduce, there is no possible way to eradicate the debt within the current system.

However, our registration at birth serves another purpose; it creates a corporate entity associated with our name, almost always denoted in capital letters. It also constitutes the legal consent of parents to the registration of their children as the 'chattal property' of the state’s creditors (the banksters), under the jurisdiction of Admiralty Law, also known as Commercial Law, or the law of the seas.

Withiin the boundaries this legal jurisdiction, all matters are matters of contract, and no contract is legally enforcable unless full disclosure exists between the parties and provable consent has been appropriately given. Birth certificates are, in reality, the registration documents of our enslavement, since they register our names as future government employees, whom, until such time that we start paying government taxes, will be considered a ward of the state.

For the avoidance of doubt, it is my considered opinion that registering the birth of our children waives all legal rights we might think we have over the lives of our offspring, meaning that most of us are not actually the legal guardians of our own children. It is also the means by which the government takes possession of our share of the nation's wealth, before surrendering it to the banksters.

Paradoxically, this little known universal deception is what invalidates the government’s contract with the corporate entity associated with our name, or the legal person. The fact that our parents are never furnished with these crucial terms and conditions represents a clear case of non-disclosure. Furthermore, this material breach renders every contract that we have ever entered into with a government agency unenforcable, but only once we revoke our consent to be governed by issuing a Notice of Understanding and Intent & Claim of Right.

To illuminate this complicated concept by way of example, when we apply to the DVLC for our driving license, by signing our name on the form we are in reality granting our consent to be governed by any punitive statutes, acts or codes they might impose upon our legal person’s right to free movement, when there is no law that compels us to apply for a driving license. It is at this point that we must recognise the difference between a statute and the law.

Statutes, acts, bye-laws and codes are rules drawn up by a corporation that are given the force of the law, but they only apply to its employees, partners and executives. The law, or more accurately, Common Law, or the law of the land, has been constructed to protect all Human Beings living on Planet Earth. We are all at liberty to act according to our own free will, provided we do not infringe the ability of others to do the same. In other words, as long as we don’t infringe the the rights to life, liberty and property of another Human Being, no judge has the legal authority to order us to do anything, including appear in court, unless we grant them jurisdiction by entering into a contract with them.

There are a myriad of ways in which we are tricked into granting our legal consent. When we accept a traffic violation in order to avoid going to court, or to avoid being charged a heavier fine, we are confirming our consent to be governed according to the Department of Transport’s fee schedule for the public highway, upon which we already have a Common Law right to travel freely.

Similarly, when we admit a speeding offence to the clerk to the justices, we are granting our consent to be bound by the verdict of the court that hears the charges against us. Just agreeing to be ‘the defendant’, or standing in the dock, grants our consent to be judged according the ruling of a de facto commercial tribuneral, that has no lawful jurisdiction over Human Beings, only the legal persons associated with them.

It is our failure to recognise these crucial distinctions that grants the government the legal right to hold us as collateral against the national debt. It also represents the reason why it has been so easy for the Global Collectivists to pass so many draconian statutes in North America and the European Union; they are merely the rules that govern corporations and their employees and do not require the consent of parliament, since they are merely corporate rules that are given the force of law by mutual consent of the parties.

By establishing a Notice of Undertanding and Intent & Claim of Right, witnessed by a Notary Public and delivered to the government by recorded post, provided it is not rebutted under oath and full commercial liablity, under penalty of perjury, within the stated time constraints, lawful excuse can be established that enables us to revoke our consent to be governed by the rules of a soulless corporation with a similar name to our country of birth.

This is the means by which we can all reclaim our individual sovereignty from those who have enslaved us for their own gain, as well as the method that Gary McKinnon can employ to render the extradition proceedings illegal, even at this extremely late stage.

I will post some links to relevant documents, definitions and success stories following this post. Suffice to say, there is credible anecdotal evidence to suggest that even legal proceedings issued by the most powerful military-industrial corporation on Earth can be halted in their tracks.

A good place to start researching is:

http://www.thinkfree.ca

This essay is the considered opinion of the author and does not constitute legal advice. All rights reserved.

Peace, love and light to all,

Citizen Zeitgeist
http://www.freetheplanet.info

[murnut]

Originally Posted by anonypony

Does the cause justify the means

Murnut favourite point...

It might surprise you to learn, that on both sides of the Atlantic, courts have ruled that in particular cases - the cause does indeed justify the means. Particularly when the cause is preventing an even bigger crime from being committed.

I can point to a very recent (September 12, 2008) and relevant legal cases:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-26040,00.html

“LONDON: The fight for the planet has broken new ground, with a British jury acquitting environmental activists who caused more than pound stg. 35,000 ($76,000) worth of damage to a coal-fired power station.

In a decision that will send chills down corporate spines across Britain, the jury decided the dangers of global warming were so enormous that the Greenpeace campaigners were justified in trying to close down Kingsnorth power station in Kent.”

What Gary did, can be viewed in similar vain...

Which brings me to another of Murnut favourite argument - how can Dan and Marcia’s testimony help? Let me spell it out: If Gary’s defence centres around the principle as in the above case, Dan and Marcia’s testimonies could be highly relevant!

However this is not the time to relax...the ptb are already sorting out a precedent to negate this possibility in the future. This is very well highlighted in the following Newsweek Web Exclusive, about another recent and relevant court case, where the Justice Department has threatened to file criminal charges against a former top National Archives official if he testifies as a defence witness in a high-profile national security case. (For full story See below)

Best wishes
Anony Pony



Shut Your Mouth ... Or Else
Why are federal prosecutors threatening a government secrets expert?

Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Updated: 4:36 PM ET Sep 9, 2008
http://www.newsweek.com/id/158107

The Justice Department has threatened to file criminal charges against a former top National Archives official if he testifies as a defense witness in a high-profile national security case.

J. William Leonard, who resigned last January as the U.S. government's chief expert on classified information, after a bitter clash with Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has been cooperating with defense lawyers in a case charging two former officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) with improperly disclosing national security secrets, according to recently filed court papers.

The threat to file charges against Leonard—for allegedly violating federal ethics laws—was laid out by prosecutors in a public-court filing last spring, but got no public attention. In recent weeks, however, it has become the latest point of contention in a case that has generated enormous controversy in foreign policy and civil liberties circles.

The case charges that Steven Rosen, the former chief foreign policy aide at AIPAC, and Keith Weissman, the group's former chief Iran analyst, violated a World War I-era law, called the Espionage Act, when they allegedly passed along national security secrets to officials at the Israeli Embassy and to reporters. They had learned the alleged secrets in meetings with high-level government officials, including then national security adviser and now secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice. The two men are the first non-government officials ever to be prosecuted for disseminating "national defense information" under the law, raising concerns that others—including members of the news media—could ultimately face similar kinds of charges if the government's case is successful.

But the secret information Weissman and Rosen are being accused of passing along might not have been secret at all. Lawyers in the case told NEWSWEEK that, after reviewing a large volume of sealed evidence, Leonard was prepared to testify that the information at issue was either not properly classified or was already available from public sources, including newspaper accounts.

"This is a bizarre twist," said Steve Aftergood, a national security specialist for the Federation of American Scientists, who has followed the case closely. "If [Leonard] is right, not only are the defendants innocent, there was no crime."

As director of the National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office, Leonard was known as the government's "classification czar" because of his authority to enforce rules on the handling of classified information. He was also a strong critic of government classification practices, contending that far more information was branded "classified" (and therefore barred from public disclosure) than was justified.

But Justice Department prosecutors have aggressively struck back with an unusual maneuver to block Leonard from ever airing his views in court. After defense lawyers signaled their intention to use Leonard as an "expert witness," federal prosecutors filed a motion asserting that if Leonard appeared on the witness stand he could be criminally prosecuted under federal ethics laws.

The reason: Leonard had once briefly met with prosecutors on the AIPAC case when he still served in government. Therefore, the prosecutors now assert, he is covered by a federal ethics laws that bars former officials from appearing in court on behalf of a private party in any matter in which they had participated "personally and substantially" while they were in public office. "These ethics laws provide both criminal and civil penalties for violations," the prosecutors wrote in their motion. "Knowing violations of the law can be punished by not more than one year in jail and fine, and willful violations may be punished by up to five years in prison and fines." (A Justice Department official, who asked not to be identified, talking about an ongoing case, said that prosecutors did not view their motion as a threat, merely a statement of the applicable laws governing Leonard's cooperation with the defense lawyers.)

Defense attorneys and Leonard's lawyer, Mark Zaid, say the Justice Department's position is a stretch at best. Leonard never worked directly on the AIPAC case, they assert, and played no role in the decision to charge Rosen and Weissman with a crime. After the two men were indicted, government prosecutors met with Leonard for less than an hour in March 2006, to ask him if he would serve as a government witness to talk about the importance of protecting classified information. But when Leonard told them about the inconsistent ways in which national security information is classified, the prosecutors lost interest in using him as a witness and never contacted him again.

"It's an outrage" says Baruch Weiss, a defense lawyer representing Weissman, who is seeking to call Leonard as a witness in the case. "When they thought he might say what they wanted him to say, they said, 'Terrific.' When it turns out he's going to say something that is helpful to the defense, they say, "We're going to prosecute you for a crime.' I have never seen anything like this before."

Since then, defense lawyers have sought to subpoena Leonard, who, through his lawyer, Zaid, moved to squash the subpoena. The idea behind this legal back and forth was to force the judge in the case, T.S. Ellis III, to issue a ruling requiring Leonard to testify, thereby protecting him from criminal prosecution if he does. (Leonard had sought an ethics opinion from the Archives and was told he should seek a court ruling on the matter of his testimony.) There is no indication when Ellis might rule—or even when the AIPAC case might come to trial. Although it was scheduled to begin next month, lawyers say the date is certain to be moved back—most likely to next year—because of continued clashes over what national security secrets can be declassified and disclosed to the jury during the trial.

The case is being watched closely because of a decision by judge Ellis last year, in which he ruled that when the case does come to trial, current and former high- level government officials, including, Rice; former undersecretary of defense Douglas Feith; and former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage; must testify about their own conversations with the two former AIPAC lobbyists. The defense lawyers have said they want to call them and other high-level current and former Bush administration officials as witnesses. The lawyers want to show that the kind of conversations Bush officials had with the AIPAC lobbyists (about Mideast issues, including the terrorist ties of the Iranian government) were common.

This isn't the first time Leonard has been the center of controversy. Leonard become embroiled in a bitter dispute with Cheney's chief of staff, David Addington, when he sought to conduct a mandatory inspection of the vice president's office to determine if it was complying with an executive order governing the handling of classified information. Addington refused to provide Leonard's aides with access, claiming that the vice president's office was not covered by the executive order because, technically speaking, Cheney was not part of the executive branch. Addington argued that, under the Constitution, the only official function of the vice president was to preside over the Senate so therefore Cheney was really part of the legislative branch. When Leonard challenged Addington's creative argument and sought an official Justice Department legal ruling on the matter, Addington sent an e-mail suggesting that Leonard's office (and his job) be abolished. The dispute, which was made public last year by House Government Reform committee chairman Rep. Henry Waxman, created an uproar [http://www.newsweek.com/id/81883/page/1]. Ultimately, Leonard told NEWSWEEK, it was a "contributing factor" in his decision to resign after 34 years of government service.

Terror Watch appears weekly on Newsweek.com

You all have made excellent arguments....but.....if we are going to make a case that it is okay to break laws....just where do you draw the line, in the name of the cause?

Maybe Suicide bombing is okay?

I am saying it is a slippery slope, and when you over throw the current ptb, we are no better, and the cycle continues.

The new ptb are the same as the old.

Either we hold ourselves to a high moral standard, or we don't.

This is not the way to gain credibility in the mainstream population.

It only firmly cements us as fringe.
===============================

I did not post in this thread to create controversy.

I posted to try to bring some balance.

I have no problem with Gary being tried in the UK, but the UK did not charge him.

I still think it is foolish for Gary to go to trial, but that is his right.

Yes the US would have to prove it's case.

I also doubt the level of the cover up to include all that would have to be included to make this work....to get Gary.

There would have to be hundreds in on it.

Gary has no proof he saw anything.

Dan Burisch has no proof either.

If Gary really had seen anything, He would have just been disappeared, long before being charged.

To me it is not logical...on one hand many speculate to the level of evil that enforces the cover up, but on the other this evil is incompetent?

Really would the biggest secret in the history of mankind, be left on a computer network?

Is this super evil really so stupid?

I wish Gary well, and the rest of you also.

Maybe what is really occurring here, is a simple hacker who got caught, who does not want his penalty.

Many encourage Gary to fight, not because it is in Gary's best interest, but because it is in the conspiracy fringes best interest.

This to me is disingenuous.

[Lochinvar]

Originally Posted by murnut

.....if we are going to make a case that it is okay to break laws....just where do you draw the line,

There are people on this site that are/were employed by the people that run the UK (and probably the US) to break the law for a living (most often to the detriment of the masses). I think you are living in a bubble of naivete.

when the law is an ass, you should kick it.

[murnut]

Originally Posted by Lochinvar

There are people on this site that are/were employed by the people that run the UK (and probably the US) to break the law for a living (most often to the detriment of the masses). I think you are living in a bubble of naivete.

I just won't stoop to their level.

Again no one answers the question on where do you draw the line.

Once you do what they do, what's the difference?

EDIT

Am I really so naive to believe that not all conspiracy theories are true?

Certainly all is not what it seems, I would agree.

But just WHAT is true and WHAT is disinfo?

Is it not possible that some of these whistleblower's are feeding disinfo?

At this time, we must all decide for ourselves, and not fall into the trap of group think.

If Ufology wants to be anything more than a fringe counter culture, then we should be embracing the real heroes.

Like Leslie Kean, James Fox, Bruce Maccabee, Robert Collins, etc.

When whatever is called the truth comes, wrapped in the tag of disclosure, many just won't believe for different reasons.

Some will say it does not go far enough(Ufo community fringe)

Joe Sixpack really does not care, and won't believe the proof that is offered, unless there is some type of demonstration.

So what is the incentive for the Govts to disclose?

Disclosure is lose-lose for those in charge.

Govts are not about truth, they are about control.

So why believe or trust anything with regards to disclosure from the govt?

[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: