Go Back   Old Project Avalon Forum (ARCHIVE) > Project Camelot Forum > Project Camelot > Project Camelot General Discussion

Notices

Project Camelot General Discussion Reactions, feedback and suggestions on interviews, current events and experiences.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-12-2008, 12:01 PM   #51
anonypony
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 42
Default Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon

There are few points raised here which I would like to respond to, lets begin with the House of Lords hearing of the case, I noticed that murnut quoted some of it here, with own emphasis and highlights, I am grateful, it gives me the opportunity to discuss it.

The credibility of the House of lords report and what has happened in reality

The basis of the house of lords hearing of the case stemmed from the difference between the legal system in the UK and the USA.
And aimed to determine if the plead bargain that was offered was pure threat or mere outlining to the accused of his options!

Gary’s legal team had documented evidence of the meeting where the threat was made, including a RECORDING of the meeting which could prove his case (of being threatened) either way, That evidence was STOLEN from Gary’s solicitors office in the last minute before the hearing.

Officials that were not present in this meeting (where Gary was threatened) are suddenly giving evidence that they were present with very little to prove the fact...

And more such anomalies were abundant throughout...

I ask myself: If Gary had no leg to stand on, why go to such length to eliminate all the evidence?

When I read the House of Lords report for the first time, I was amazed at the inaccuracies that appeared in it and the purpose those serve in ‘creating a particular perception’. Here is one example to highlight my point:

The house of lords report reads:
“16. Analysis of the appellant’s home computer confirmed these allegations. During his interviews under caution, moreover, he admitted responsibility (although not that he had actually caused damage). He stated that his targets were high level US Army, Navy and Air Force computers and that his ultimate goal was to gain access to the US military classified information network. He admitted leaving a note on one army computer reading:

“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 . . .” “
“Analysis of the appellant’s home computer confirmed these allegations.” In reality we are yet to see this evidence if you read what are these allegations, you will see that a lot of it centres on DAMAGE and MALICIOUS INTENT, both always denied by Gary!

Malicious Intent: The HL ruling reads:
“15. The appellant’s conduct was alleged to be intentional and calculated to influence the US Government by intimidation and coercion. It damaged computers by impairing their integrity, availability and operation of programmes, systems, information and data, rendering them unreliable. The cost of repair was alleged to total over $700,000.”
This is based on the way his massages are interpreted however In reality Gary left 3 separate messages on 3 different occasions

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

Presenting it as one whole message takes it out of context and exaggerate the severity of it...

Another example of creating a false perception is not by what you say, but by what you don’t say.
The lords deliberate and present that the difference in severity of punishment between taking the plea offer or not, is not that great! 3, 4 years compared with 8-10 years, it stats:
“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.”
In reality what they failed to mention throughout the report - is how many counts of 8 to 10 years are added up, which will be up to 70 - 80 years!

Creating a perception is the name of the game ‘WINING OUR HEARTS AND MINDS’ at all cost, is the real war here!

And the only effective way I know to fend this off, is by GETTING INFORMED so perception become based on facts not fantasy!

P.S Did I mention the lord presiding over this case is a high ranking ex UK secrete service?


Best wishes
Anony Pony
anonypony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 12:03 PM   #52
Lochinvar
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Keeping them guessing
Posts: 13
Default Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon

Quote:
Originally Posted by chaostheory View Post
Yeah, its seems murmot doesnt quite get it, or he would prefer to stick up for the laws of a corrupt government than defend the rights of a man whos tried to bring supressed information to the people who have a right to know about it!

Makes me kinda suspicious

CT
Makes me very suspicious as well. Just the sort of opinion that I´d expect Garys prosecutors to have.

The motto of the MacKinnon family is:

"Fortune favours the daring"

Let´s hope its true.
Lochinvar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 12:09 PM   #53
murnut
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Philly
Posts: 179
Default Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon

Maybe it just is what it is....a hacker got caught.

If gary had really seen anything, he would have been eliminated.

All the hype about this case has come from Gary's side.

I have no problem with Gary, but I do have a problem with a distortion of the facts.

Either the US govt can prove the damage, or they can't.

Gary admitted hacking the network.

Why do so many advocate Gary pleading not guilty?

Is this in Gary's best interest?
murnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 12:13 PM   #54
murnut
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Philly
Posts: 179
Default Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lochinvar View Post
Makes me very suspicious as well. Just the sort of opinion that I´d expect Garys prosecutors to have.

The motto of the MacKinnon family is:

"Fortune favours the daring"

Let´s hope its true.
Gary's side has distorted the facts.

Lies are not the way.

Not every conspiracy theory is true.

Gary has gotten terrible legal advice....and it amazes me that most don't see this.
murnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 12:16 PM   #55
King Lear
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Not S-4
Posts: 306
Default Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon

Quote:
Originally Posted by murnut View Post
Maybe it just is what it is....a hacker got caught.

If gary had really seen anything, he would have been eliminated.

All the hype about this case has come from Gary's side.

I have no problem with Gary, but I do have a problem with a distortion of the facts.

Either the US govt can prove the damage, or they can't.

Gary admitted hacking the network.

Why do so many advocate Gary pleading not guilty?

Is this in Gary's best interest?
And why do you consider him as GUILTY a priori?

Have you inspected "the damgead computers"?


Begging your pardon, but
I think you do take this position because of a wrongly understood patriotism.

Last edited by King Lear; 09-12-2008 at 09:53 PM.
King Lear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 12:43 PM   #56
anonypony
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 42
Default Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon

Again I would like to thank murnut for repeatedly making the point that all cases of hacking are dealt with in a similar way and challenging anyone to come up with references to such cases that did not attract such treatment.

The article quoted below highlights this issue and give such reference. Mathew Bevan alleged crimes were cited as examples of cyberterrorism at Senate hearings in 1996. But no attempt was ever made to extradite Bevan to the US. Instead he was prosecuted in the UK. The case eventually fell apart after 18 months, when prosecutors decided not to proceed.

Best wishes
Anony Pony

McKinnon a 'scapegoat for Pentagon insecurity' US mil still wide open to attack, says reformed hacker

By John Leyden
Published Wednesday 3rd September 2008 08:02 GMT on > The Register » Security » Crime » http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09...view_analysis/

As accused Pentagon hacker Gary McKinnon hopes against hope to avoid being extradited to the US, another reformed military systems meddler considers his own case - and how different the outcome was.

McKinnon is probably days away from extradition. Only a last minute plea to the Home Secretary "Wacky" Jacqui Smith - based on McKinnon's recent diagnosis with Asperger Syndrome - now stands between the Scot and a US trial for hacking into US government and military systems. Friends and family staged a demonstration outside the Home Office on Tuesday in a bid to draw attention to McKinnon's plight.

The handling of McKinnon's case is in marked contrast to how US authorities handled a similar one ten years ago. Like McKinnon, reformed computer hacker Mathew Bevan was charged with breaking into US military computer systems. Bevan was also curious about searching for evidence that the US military had harvested technology from crashed UFOs. Bevan's alleged crimes were cited as examples of cyberterrorism at Senate hearings in 1996.

But no attempt was ever made to extradite Bevan to the US. Instead he was prosecuted in the UK. The case eventually fell apart after 18 months, when prosecutors decided not to proceed.

Bevan put the legal fight behind him and has since gone on to become an ethical hacker and security consultant. Speaking exclusively to El Reg, Bevan said McKinnon is being used in a political game that has more to do with securing funds than deterring or preventing attacks.

"Clearly, lessons have not been learned since I breached similar systems and as I have always suggested - perhaps stopping the intrusions is not the goal of the administration," Bevan said. "Tacitly allowing access to machines by ensuring that default passwords or in fact access methods without passwords is suggestive of a system that really does not care too much about many of the machines connected to it."

Bevan questions why Windows PCs on US military networks are connected to the internet via direct IPs. Thousands of attackers regularly use the same remote access port accessed during McKinnon's hack, but little or no action has been taken in their cases, Bevan adds.

McKinnon has said that many other hackers had gained access to the same systems he was accessing, questioning why US authorities singled him out for prosecution. The fact that McKinnon did nothing to disguise his tracks and lived in a country with a friendly extradition regime probably has a fair bit to do with this.

Bevan supports McKinnon's contention that he was far from alone in rooting around US military systems. "You ask any military hacker about the machines they broke in to and they will tell you they were not the only people on those systems. Of course, they weren't the only people, as there were great numbers of people whiling away their time hacking computers."

Pork barrel ploy

McKinnon, according to Bevan, was far more than simply unlucky.

"Why is it that only a tiny number of those people ever face prosecution? It is clearly not because the others cannot be found. You cannot believe that out of so many people, Gary just happened to be caught."

McKinnon is being used as a scapegoat in a bid to secure extra funding to protect US military networks, according to Bevan, who reckons a commercial organisation would never get away with such trickery.

"I think it's all about timing and whether or not the hacker will make a good scapegoat whilst allowing the administration to request further money. The fear machine can keep churning out propaganda as per normal, but don't expect those machines to actually get better security. They are not businesses, have no shareholders and therefore do not have to answer to the same stringent rules and tests that the computer systems of corporations would."

Bevan compared hacking attacks to an infestation by pests. Both stem from a failure to follow basic housekeeping rules, he argued.

"My cynical side believes that those 'pesky hackers' are treated just like any bug infestation, the odd one or two or even a handful is not much of an issue until the place becomes overrun. It is then that you can call in the exterminators and make a big fuss about the problem, of course it never addresses that the usual problem with an infestation is someone has not been keeping their place tidy. You leave scraps around for rats to find and in a short time you will have many, many more rats sniffing around for the goodies."

With such lax security, the US authorities are lucky that McKinnon only had peaceful intentions in mind, Bevan noted.

"Gary is a self-confessed stoner and perpetrated the 'biggest military hack of all time' whilst completely wasted. This is clearly a sign of how lax the security of these systems was. If Gary had been clear minded and deliberate about what he wanted to achieve and was a malicious person rather than the pacifist he is - where exactly would we be now?"

Fast-track extradition is a one-way street

The US Congress has not ratified the fast-track extradition treaty between the UK and the US. UK prosecutors would need to present a compelling case before a US court before securing an extradition, whereas US authorities, as in the McKinnon case, have far fewer hurdles to clear.

"If it was an American hacker who had breached our computers - would we be fighting for extradition? I doubt it. In fact, we would most likely have to issue a public apology for our lapse in security and the media would be up-in-arms about how weak our defences are."

He added that the human factor is often ignored in the debate over McKinnon's fate, which is split between the 'burn him' camp and the 'deal with him here or let him go' lobby.

"People seem to forget that Gary is not just a meme or a 'hacker' - he is a real person. This guy has been waiting for six and a half years already. Now the chances are that if it had been dealt with over here he would have long served his time and be free to carry on his life.

"Due to political wranglings, all we are going to see is more time lumped on top of what has already been spent waiting in the wings and as many expect that time could be way in excess of the sentences for murder here."

According to papers submitted to his failed House of Lords appeal, McKinnon was offered a plea bargaining deal featuring a sentence of between three and four years in jail, if he cooperated with the US authorities and dropped his opposition to extradition against eight to ten years behind bars in a high-security prison after a US trial. Lawyers acting for McKinnon said that this deal might not be binding, and expressed concerns that McKinnon might be prosecuted by a US military rather than civilian court.

McKinnon (AKA Solo) has always admitted that he broke into US government computer systems but denies causing any damage. Bevan said McKinnon has not had enough credit in admitting responsibility for his misdeeds.

"Under UK law we are supposed to be more lenient on criminals who admit their crimes and accept the consequences. In this case, the effect appears to be the opposite - plead guilty then wait for the consequences. In the meantime have your charges upgraded as new laws are introduced and applied retrospectively."

Supporters of McKinnon argue that the prosecution may yet blow up in their faces by placing the security shortcomings of US government systems under the microscope, especially if the case goes to trial. Sysadmins may be faced with awkward questions about why their systems were so easy to infiltrate. Even if such questions fail to arise at trial, they might spark unwelcome Congressional scrutiny.

Stars and prison stripes

Bevan said McKinnon can expect to be treated harshly by a US court, especially if (as expected) he is tried in Virginia.

"Virginia is not exactly the most friendly state to foreigners and somehow I do not think that someone who 'attacked the United States' is going to be treated that well," Bevan said, adding there was a "high chances of abuse, torture, rape and drug abuse" in US prisons.

McKinnon's supporters argue the case has wider political implications involving the UK's willingness to deport suspects to the US and Europe without requiring evidence to be presented. Bevan is also critical of the fast-track deportation system.

"Is this the new way forward for the UK justice system, to allow citizens to be removed from the country without any evidence having to be presented? To allow them to go to a penal system which allows torture and brutality of its inmates is a clear violation of his human rights."

McKinnon has shown clear signs of remorse, according to Bevan, yet this has not counted in his favour. Bevan predicts that the case sets a pattern for how the prosecution of other UK hackers accused of committing offences in the US will be treated - marking a permanent move away from local prosecution to extradition as the preferred route.

"It saddens me that the USA can remove our citizens without any prima facie evidence, yet we cannot do the same when we wish to prosecute one of their citizens. This always felt like one of the main test cases and I am sure that we will see more people being treated in this way - guilty or not makes no difference," Bevan told El Reg. "If you do not have to argue your case or can justify closed hearings based on 'national security', we are clearly moving deeper into a system of control and away from any kind of democracy."

"People talk about 'Don't do the crime if you can't do the time', but what if the crime did not have the consequences at the time that it has now? When he was doing what he was doing, the extradition laws were not made and hacking was not a terrorist offence."

McKinnon was recently diagnosed with Asperger syndrome. Bevan is sceptical whether this, and more especially his heavy use of marijuana while hacking, will be counted as mitigating by the US court system.

"People clearly forget to consider that Gary has Aspergers, was using huge quantities of skunk. Is this a person that was thinking clearly?"

"Do you think that he had any real comprehension of what he was doing? The internet is 'not real' to many people, it's just stuff that happens somewhere else. It is here that people can do things they would never normally do in the real world and do not see the correlation between online activities and real world consequences. Someone who is wasted on weed can suffer many mental effects of doing so. Here, this would be taken into consideration, but in the States, he could be looking at ten years on top of his sentence for committing a crime under the influence of drugs." ®
anonypony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 12:53 PM   #57
mikey
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 228
Default Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon

"People talk about 'Don't do the crime if you can't do the time', but what if the crime did not have the consequences at the time that it has now? When he was doing what he was doing, the extradition laws were not made and hacking was not a terrorist offence."

back of the net...

peace bananaman
mikey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 01:08 PM   #58
anonypony
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 42
Default Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon

Quote:
Originally Posted by bananaman View Post
"People talk about 'Don't do the crime if you can't do the time', but what if the crime did not have the consequences at the time that it has now? When he was doing what he was doing, the extradition laws were not made and hacking was not a terrorist offence."

back of the net...

peace bananaman
Indeed!!!!
(see my post on page 2 for more details) since the crime was committed 3 majors laws have been changed to facilitate a successful prosecution of this case.

You would think this in unlawful as it is unjust, but the way the law views retrospective prosecution is that it is unfair but acceptable!


best wishes
Anony Pony
anonypony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 01:09 PM   #59
chaostheory
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon

Dont worry guys, you always find people like murmot on every forum. likes to to give an opinion against the majority. Some peopel like to try to provoke attention

If he'd seen anythign he would have been eliminated? Thats where going public helps

Gary has distorted that facts and got terrible legal advice? Are you in close relation to this case? Have you done an exceeding amount of research into it? More than Kerry, Bill, any of us? Do u relaise the laws have changed on the prosecutions favour?

But if theres any substasnce in mine and Lochinvars suspicions, is there any real point coming on here trying to convice us all he is in the wrong and deserves his punishment and hes lying? What would that do? No...i think we're offering more credit than deserved.

Anyway, enough replying to these kind of comments, we all know what we belive and where our morals stand, its fairly obvious.

Standing together is standing stronger

CT

Last edited by chaostheory; 09-12-2008 at 01:34 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 01:40 PM   #60
JSErwine
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Iowa
Posts: 73
Default Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon

I'm trying to understand why anyone thinks that any "secret information" will be revealed to the public through this hearing by the prosecuting side?

Even if they get enough of the publics attention to this case and are asked to reveal the information viewed by Gary. They will just take the stand of "The information is a matter of national security" and will just become more historical fodder for conspirecy theorists.

I find Project Camelot's video interview with Gary interesting to say the least. Gary comes across to me as sincere and pretty much a normal Joe, like you and I.

This whole thing is a classic "David vs. Goliath" scenario on the grandest scale. Personaly I would plea bargain unless the inforamtion viewed was so important to mankind, that I could not moraly live with myself.

Governments can make as many laws as they want. But in truth there is only one set of laws I try to abide by, and those are the laws given to me by my maker. Anything else is nothing more than shackles upon my spirit.

Just my .02

Jeff
JSErwine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 01:50 PM   #61
anonypony
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 42
Default Does the cause justify the means

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
anonypony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 09:48 PM   #62
Citizen Zeitgeist
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Default Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon

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
Citizen Zeitgeist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2008, 11:06 AM   #63
anonypony
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 42
Arrow Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen Zeitgeist View Post
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
anonypony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2008, 11:55 AM   #64
murnut
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Philly
Posts: 179
Default Re: Does the cause justify the means

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonypony View Post
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.
murnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2008, 12:09 PM   #65
Citizen Zeitgeist
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Default Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon

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

Last edited by Citizen Zeitgeist; 09-14-2008 at 05:14 PM.
Citizen Zeitgeist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2008, 12:44 PM   #66
Lochinvar
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Keeping them guessing
Posts: 13
Default Re: Does the cause justify the means

Quote:
Originally Posted by murnut View Post
.....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.
Lochinvar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2008, 01:14 PM   #67
initialstate
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon

when the law is an ass, you should kick it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2008, 01:32 PM   #68
murnut
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Philly
Posts: 179
Default Re: Does the cause justify the means

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lochinvar View Post
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?

Last edited by murnut; 09-13-2008 at 01:56 PM.
murnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2008, 06:50 PM   #69
nomadrush
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Glastonbury England
Posts: 37
Exclamation Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon

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
nomadrush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2008, 11:32 PM   #70
murnut
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Philly
Posts: 179
Default Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadrush View Post
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?

Last edited by murnut; 09-13-2008 at 11:37 PM.
murnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2008, 11:41 PM   #71
murnut
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Philly
Posts: 179
Default Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon

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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2008, 11:43 PM   #72
murnut
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Philly
Posts: 179
Default Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon

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?
murnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2008, 02:07 PM   #73
anonypony
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 42
Default Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...83962361&hl=en
anonypony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2008, 02:24 PM   #74
murnut
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Philly
Posts: 179
Default Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonypony View Post

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?
murnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2008, 03:14 PM   #75
nomadrush
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Glastonbury England
Posts: 37
Default Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon

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!
nomadrush is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Project Avalon