The US give assurances that the US can stop any attempted suicide yet the suicide rate in US prisons is very high.

It seems the UK courts are willing to take undertakings that are not worth the paper written on from the US rather than look at a case on it’s real merits.

The Coalition and the courts are turning a blind eye to the US superior power in order not to offend the US.

The UK government and courts so closely linked should stand up for the people it is supposed to serve and say no when injustice is clear.

By Brian Howes.

The websites used my company address sold the same chemicals and even chemicals that were real drug precursors and the Illegal actions by the US DEA maybe with the consent of the UK governemnt.

The Websites were registered by James Porter AKA DEA agent Tracy McBride who then entrapped US citizens and put the sales down to http://Kno3.com a website of a company I was running.

Surely this is Illegal which shows the abuse that is used in UK / US extradition.

Registrant:
   The Chemical Closet
   3 Sawley Road
   Greater Manchester, Manchester M40 8BB
   United Kingdom

   Domain Name: THECHEMICALCLOSET.COM
      Created on: 29-Jun-07
      Expires on: 29-Jun-08
      Last Updated on: 29-Jun-07

   Administrative Contact:
      Porter, James  james.porterthe3rd@yahoo.co.uk
      The Chemical Closet
      3 Sawley Road
      Greater Manchester, Manchester M40 8BB
      United Kingdom
      447742129481      Fax -- 

   Technical Contact:
      Porter, James  james.porterthe3rd@yahoo.co.uk
      The Chemical Closet
      3 Sawley Road
      Greater Manchester, Manchester M40 8BB
      United Kingdom
      447742129481      Fax -- 

   Domain servers in listed order:
      NS57.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
      NS58.DOMAINCONTROL.COM

There is a lot more to this story but it is on timed release so please keep checking for further updated

UNITED

NATIONS

CAT

Convention against Torture

and Other Cruel, Inhuman

or Degrading Treatment

or Punishment

Distr.

GENERAL

CAT/C/USA/CO/2

25 July 2006

Original: ENGLISH

COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE

Thirty-sixth session

1-19 May 2006

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES

UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONVENTION

Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

1. The Committee against Torture considered the second report of the United States of

America (CAT/C/48/Add.3/Rev.1) at its 702nd and 705th meetings (CAT/C/SR.702 and 705),

held on 5 and 8 May 2006, and adopted, at its 720th and 721st meetings, on 17 and 18 May 2006

(CAT/C/SR.720 and 721), the following conclusions and recommendations.

A. Introduction

2. The second periodic report of the United States of America was due

on 19 November 2001, as requested by the Committee at its twenty-fourth session in

May 2000 (A/55/44, para. 180 (f)) and was received on 6 May 2005. The Committee notes

that the report includes a point-by-point reply to the Committee’s previous recommendations.

3. The Committee commends the State party for its exhaustive written responses to the

Committee’s list of issues, as well as the detailed responses provided both in writing and orally

to the questions posed by the members during the examination of the report. The Committee

expresses its appreciation for the large and high-level delegation, comprising representatives

from relevant departments of the State party, which facilitated a constructive oral exchange

during the consideration of the report.

4. The Committee notes that the State party has a federal structure, but recalls that the

United States of America is a single State under international law and has the obligation to

CAT/C/USA/CO/2

page 2

implement the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or

Punishment (“the Convention”) in full at the domestic level.

GE.06-43225 (E) 070806

5. Recalling its statement adopted on 22 November 2001 condemning utterly the terrorist

attacks of 11 September 2001, the terrible threat to international peace and security posed by acts

of international terrorism and the need to combat by all means, in accordance with the Charter of

the United Nations, the threats caused by terrorist acts, the Committee recognizes that these

attacks caused profound suffering to many residents of the State party. The Committee

acknowledges that the State party is engaged in protecting its security and the security and

freedom of its citizens in a complex legal and political context.

B. Positive aspects

6. The Committee welcomes the State party’s statement that all United States officials, from

all government agencies, including its contractors, are prohibited from engaging in torture at all

times and in all places, and that all United States officials from all government agencies,

including its contractors, wherever they may be, are prohibited from engaging in cruel, inhuman

or degrading treatment or punishment, in accordance with the obligations under the Convention.

7. The Committee notes with satisfaction the State party’s statement that the United States

does not transfer persons to countries where it believes it is “more likely than not” that they will

be tortured, and that this also applies, as a matter of policy, to the transfer of any individual, in

the State party’s custody, or control, regardless of where they are detained.

8. The Committee welcomes the State party’s clarification that the statement of the

United States President on signing the Detainee Treatment Act on 30 December 2005 is not to be

interpreted as a derogation by the President from the absolute prohibition of torture.

9. The Committee also notes with satisfaction the enactment of:

(a) The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, which addresses sexual assault of

persons in the custody of correctional agencies, with the purpose, inter alia, of establishing a

“zero-tolerance standard” for rape in detention facilities in the State party; and

(b) That part of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 which prohibits cruel, inhuman,

or degrading treatment and punishment of any person, regardless of nationality or physical

location, in the custody or under the physical control of the State party.

10. The Committee welcomes the adoption of National Detention Standards in 2000, which

set minimum standards for detention facilities holding Department of Homeland Security

detainees, including asylum-seekers.

11. The Committee also notes with satisfaction the sustained and substantial contributions of

the State party to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for the Victims of Torture.

CAT/C/USA/CO/2

page 3

12. The Committee notes the State party’s intention to adopt a new Army Field Manual for

intelligence interrogation, applicable to all its personnel, which, according to the State party, will

ensure that interrogation techniques fully comply with the Convention.

C. Subjects of concern and recommendations

13. Notwithstanding the statement by the State party that “every act of torture within the

meaning of the Convention is illegal under existing federal and/or state law”, the Committee

reiterates the concern expressed in its previous conclusions and recommendations with regard to

the absence of a federal crime of torture, consistent with article 1 of the Convention, given that

sections 2340 and 2340 A of the United States Code limit federal criminal jurisdiction over acts

of torture to extraterritorial cases. The Committee also regrets that, despite the occurrence of

cases of extraterritorial torture of detainees, no prosecutions have been initiated under the

extraterritorial criminal torture statute (arts. 1, 2, 4 and 5).

The Committee reiterates its previous recommendation that the State party should

enact a federal crime of torture consistent with article 1 of the Convention, which

should include appropriate penalties, in order to fulfil its obligations under the

Convention to prevent and eliminate acts of torture causing severe pain or suffering,

whether physical or mental, in all its forms.

The State party should ensure that acts of psychological torture, prohibited by the

Convention, are not limited to “prolonged mental harm” as set out in the State

party’s understandings lodged at the time of ratification of the Convention, but

constitute a wider category of acts, which cause severe mental suffering, irrespective

of their prolongation or its duration.

The State party should investigate, prosecute and punish perpetrators under the

federal extraterritorial criminal torture statute.

14. The Committee regrets the State party’s opinion that the Convention is not applicable in

times and in the context of armed conflict, on the basis of the argument that the “law of armed

conflict” is the exclusive

lex specialis applicable, and that the Convention’s application “would

result in an overlap of the different treaties which would undermine the objective of eradicating

torture” (arts. 1 and 16).

The State party should recognize and ensure that the Convention applies at all

times, whether in peace, war or armed conflict, in any territory under its

jurisdiction and that the application of the Convention’s provisions are without

prejudice to the provisions of any other international instrument, pursuant to

paragraph 2 of its articles 1 and 16.

15. The Committee notes that a number of the Convention’s provisions are expressed as

applying to “territory under [the State party’s] jurisdiction” (arts. 2, 5, 13, 16). The Committee

reiterates its previously expressed view that this includes all areas under the de facto effective

control of the State party, by whichever military or civil authorities such control is exercised.

CAT/C/USA/CO/2

page 4

The Committee considers that the State party’s view that those provisions are geographically

limited to its own de jure territory to be regrettable.

CAT/C/USA/CO/2

page 5

The State party should recognize and ensure that the provisions of the Convention

expressed as applicable to “territory under the State party’s jurisdiction” apply to,

and are fully enjoyed, by all persons under the effective control of its authorities, of

whichever type, wherever located in the world.

16. The Committee notes with concern that the State party does not always register persons

detained in territories under its jurisdiction outside the United States, depriving them of an

effective safeguard against acts of torture (art. 2).

The State party should register all persons it detains in any territory under its

jurisdiction, as one measure to prevent acts of torture. Registration should contain

the identity of the detainee, the date, time and place of the detention, the identity of

the authority that detained the person, the ground for the detention, the date and

time of admission to the detention facility and the state of health of the detainee

upon admission and any changes thereto, the time and place of interrogations, with

the names of all interrogators present, as well as the date and time of release or

transfer to another detention facility.

17. The Committee is concerned by allegations that the State party has established secret

detention facilities, which are not accessible to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Detainees are allegedly deprived of fundamental legal safeguards, including an oversight

mechanism in regard to their treatment and review procedures with respect to their detention.

The Committee is also concerned by allegations that those detained in such facilities could be

held for prolonged periods and face torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The

Committee considers the “no comment” policy of the State party regarding the existence of such

secret detention facilities, as well as on its intelligence activities, to be regrettable (arts. 2

and 16).

The State party should ensure that no one is detained in any secret detention facility

under its de facto effective control. Detaining persons in such conditions constitutes,

per se, a violation of the Convention. The State party should investigate and

disclose the existence of any such facilities and the authority under which they have

been established and the manner in which detainees are treated. The State party

should publicly condemn any policy of secret detention.

The Committee recalls that intelligence activities, notwithstanding their author,

nature or location, are acts of the State party, fully engaging its international

responsibility.

18. The Committee is concerned by reports of the involvement of the State party in enforced

disappearances. The Committee considers the State party’s view that such acts do not constitute

a form of torture to be regrettable (arts. 2 and 16).

The State party should adopt all necessary measures to prohibit and prevent

enforced disappearance in any territory under its jurisdiction, and prosecute and

CAT/C/USA/CO/2

page 6

punish perpetrators, as this practice constitutes, per se, a violation of the

Convention.

19. Notwithstanding the State party’s statement that “[u]nder U.S. law, there is no derogation

from the express statutory prohibition of torture” and that “[n]o circumstances whatsoever …

may be invoked as a justification or defense to committing torture”, the Committee

remains concerned at the absence of clear legal provisions ensuring that the Convention’s

prohibition against torture is not derogated from under any circumstances, in particular

since 11 September 2001 (arts. 2, 11 and 12).

The State party should adopt clear legal provisions to implement the principle of

absolute prohibition of torture in its domestic law without any possible derogation.

Derogation from this principle is incompatible with paragraph 2 of article 2 of the

Convention, and cannot limit criminal responsibility. The State party should also

ensure that perpetrators of acts of torture are prosecuted and punished

appropriately.

The State party should also ensure that any interrogation rules, instructions or

methods do not derogate from the principle of absolute prohibition of torture and

that no doctrine under domestic law impedes the full criminal responsibility of

perpetrators of acts of torture.

The State party should promptly, thoroughly, and impartially investigate any

responsibility of senior military and civilian officials authorizing, acquiescing or

consenting, in any way, to acts of torture committed by their subordinates.

20. The Committee is concerned that the State party considers that the non-refoulement

obligation, under article 3 of the Convention, does not extend to a person detained outside its

territory. The Committee is also concerned by the State party’s rendition of suspects, without

any judicial procedure, to States where they face a real risk of torture (art. 3).

The State party should apply the

non-refoulement guarantee to all detainees in its

custody, cease the rendition of suspects, in particular by its intelligence agencies, to

States where they face a real risk of torture, in order to comply with its obligations

under article 3 of the Convention. The State party should always ensure that

suspects have the possibility to challenge decisions of

refoulement.

21. The Committee is concerned by the State party’s use of “diplomatic assurances”, or other

kinds of guarantees, assuring that a person will not be tortured if expelled, returned, transferred

or extradited to another State. The Committee is also concerned by the secrecy of such

procedures including the absence of judicial scrutiny and the lack of monitoring mechanisms put

in place to assess if the assurances have been honoured (art. 3).

When determining the applicability of its

non-refoulement obligations under

article 3 of the Convention, the State party should only rely on “diplomatic

assurances” in regard to States which do not systematically violate the Convention’s

CAT/C/USA/CO/2

page 7

provisions, and after a thorough examination of the merits of each individual case.

The State party should establish and implement clear procedures for obtaining such

assurances, with adequate judicial mechanisms for review, and effective post-return

CAT/C/USA/CO/2

page 8

monitoring arrangements. The State party should also provide detailed information

to the Committee on all cases since 11 September 2001 where assurances have been

provided.

22. The Committee, noting that detaining persons indefinitely without charge constitutes

per se a violation of the Convention, is concerned that detainees are held for protracted periods at

Guantánamo Bay, without sufficient legal safeguards and without judicial assessment of the

justification for their detention (arts. 2, 3 and 16).

The State party should cease to detain any person at Guantánamo Bay and close

this detention facility, permit access by the detainees to judicial process or release

them as soon as possible, ensuring that they are not returned to any State where

they could face a real risk of being tortured, in order to comply with its obligations

under the Convention.

23. The Committee is concerned that information, education and training provided to the

State party’s law-enforcement or military personnel are not adequate and do not focus on all

provisions of the Convention, in particular on the non-derogable nature of the prohibition of

torture and the prevention of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment (arts. 10

and 11).

The State party should ensure that education and training of all law-enforcement or

military personnel, are conducted on a regular basis, in particular for personnel

involved in the interrogation of suspects. This should include training on

interrogation rules, instructions and methods, and specific training on how to

identify signs of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Such

personnel should also be instructed to report such incidents.

The State party should also regularly evaluate the training and education provided

to its law-enforcement and military personnel as well as ensure regular and

independent monitoring of their conduct.

24. The Committee is concerned that in 2002 the State party authorized the use of certain

interrogation techniques that have resulted in the death of some detainees during interrogation.

The Committee also regrets that “confusing interrogation rules” and techniques defined

in vague and general terms, such as “stress positions”, have led to serious abuses of detainees

(arts. 11, 1, 2 and 16).

The State party should rescind any interrogation technique, including methods

involving sexual humiliation, “waterboarding”, “short shackling” and using dogs to

induce fear, that constitutes torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or

punishment, in all places of detention under its de facto effective control, in order to

comply with its obligations under the Convention.

CAT/C/USA/CO/2

page 9

25. The Committee is concerned at allegations of impunity of some of the State party’s

law-enforcement personnel in respect of acts of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment

or punishment. The Committee notes the limited investigation and lack of prosecution in respect

of the allegations of torture perpetrated in areas 2 and 3 of the Chicago Police Department

(art. 12).

The State party should promptly, thoroughly and impartially investigate all

allegations of acts of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or

punishment by law-enforcement personnel and bring perpetrators to justice, in

order to fulfil its obligations under article 12 of the Convention. The State party

should also provide the Committee with information on the ongoing investigations

and prosecution relating to the above-mentioned case.

26. The Committee is concerned by reliable reports of acts of torture or cruel, inhuman and

degrading treatment or punishment committed by certain members of the State party’s military

or civilian personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is also concerned that the investigation and

prosecution of many of these cases, including some resulting in the death of detainees, have led

to lenient sentences, including of an administrative nature or less than one year’s imprisonment

(art. 12).

The State party should take immediate measures to eradicate all forms of torture

and ill-treatment of detainees by its military or civilian personnel, in any territory

under its jurisdiction, and should promptly and thoroughly investigate such acts,

prosecute all those responsible for such acts, and ensure they are appropriately

punished, in accordance with the seriousness of the crime.

27. The Committee is concerned that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 aims to withdraw

the jurisdiction of the State party’s federal courts with respect to habeas corpus petitions, or other

claims by or on behalf of Guantánamo Bay detainees, except under limited circumstances. The

Committee is also concerned that detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq, under the control of the

Department of Defense, have their status determined and reviewed by an administrative process

of that department (art. 13).

The State party should ensure that independent, prompt and thorough procedures

to review the circumstances of detention and the status of detainees are available to

all detainees, as required by article 13 of the Convention.

28. The Committee is concerned at the difficulties certain victims of abuses have faced in

obtaining redress and adequate compensation, and that only a limited number of detainees have

filed claims for compensation for alleged abuse and maltreatment, in particular under the Foreign

Claims Act (art. 14).

The State party should ensure, in accordance with the Convention, that mechanisms

to obtain full redress, compensation and rehabilitation are accessible to all victims

of acts of torture or abuse, including sexual violence, perpetrated by its officials.

CAT/C/USA/CO/2

page 10

29. The Committee is concerned at section 1997 e (e) of the 1995 Prison Litigation Reform

Act which provides “that no federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner for mental or

emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury” (art. 14).

The State party should not limit the right of victims to bring civil actions and amend

the Prison Litigation Reform Act accordingly.

30. The Committee, while taking note of the State party’s instruction number 10

of 24 March 2006, which provides that military commissions shall not admit statements

established to be made as a result of torture in evidence, is concerned about the implementation

of the instruction in the context of such commissions and the limitations on detainees’ effective

right to complain. The Committee is also concerned about the Combatant Status Review

Tribunals and the Administrative Review Boards (arts. 13 and 15).

The State party should ensure that its obligations under articles 13 and 15 are

fulfilled in all circumstances, including in the context of military commissions and

should consider establishing an independent mechanism to guarantee the rights of

all detainees in its custody.

31. The Committee is concerned at the fact that substantiated information indicates that

executions in the State party can be accompanied by severe pain and suffering (arts. 16, 1

and 2).

The State party should carefully review its execution methods, in particular lethal

injection, in order to prevent severe pain and suffering.

32. The Committee is concerned at reliable reports of sexual assault of sentenced detainees,

as well as persons in pretrial or immigration detention, in places of detention in the State party.

The Committee is concerned that there are numerous reports of sexual violence perpetrated by

detainees on one another, and that persons of differing sexual orientation are particularly

vulnerable. The Committee is also concerned by the lack of prompt and independent

investigation of such acts and that appropriate measures to combat these abuses have not been

implemented by the State party (arts. 16, 12, 13 and 14).

The State party should design and implement appropriate measures to prevent all

sexual violence in all its detention centres. The State party should ensure that all

allegations of violence in detention centres are investigated promptly and

independently, perpetrators are prosecuted and appropriately sentenced and

victims can seek redress, including appropriate compensation.

33. The Committee is concerned at the treatment of detained women in the State party,

including gender-based humiliation and incidents of shackling of women detainees during

childbirth (art. 16).

The State party should adopt all appropriate measures to ensure that women in

detention are treated in conformity with international standards.

CAT/C/USA/CO/2

page 11

34. The Committee reiterates the concern expressed in its previous recommendations about

the conditions of the detention of children, in particular the fact that they may not be completely

segregated from adults during pretrial detention and after sentencing. The Committee is also

concerned at the large number of children sentenced to life imprisonment in the State party

(art. 16).

The State party should ensure that detained children are kept in facilities separate

from those for adults in conformity with international standards. The State party

should address the question of sentences of life imprisonment of children, as these

could constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

35. The Committee remains concerned about the extensive use by the State party’s

law-enforcement personnel of electroshock devices, which have caused several deaths. The

Committee is concerned that this practice raises serious issues of compatibility with article 16 of

the Convention.

The State party should carefully review the use of electroshock devices, strictly

regulate their use, restricting it to substitution for lethal weapons, and eliminate the

use of these devices to restrain persons in custody, as this leads to breaches of

article 16 of the Convention.

36. The Committee remains concerned about the extremely harsh regime imposed on

detainees in “supermaximum prisons”. The Committee is concerned about the prolonged

isolation periods detainees are subjected to, the effect such treatment has on their mental health,

and that its purpose may be retribution, in which case it would constitute cruel, inhuman or

degrading treatment or punishment (art. 16).

The State party should review the regime imposed on detainees in “supermaximum

prisons”, in particular the practice of prolonged isolation.

37. The Committee is concerned about reports of brutality and use of excessive force by the

State party’s law-enforcement personnel, and the numerous allegations of their ill-treatment of

vulnerable groups, in particular racial minorities, migrants and persons of different sexual

orientation which have not been adequately investigated (art. 16 and 12).

The State party should ensure that reports of brutality and ill-treatment of

members of vulnerable groups by its law-enforcement personnel are independently,

promptly and thoroughly investigated and that perpetrators are prosecuted and

appropriately punished.

38. The Committee strongly encourages the State party to invite the Special Rapporteur on

torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in full conformity with

the terms of reference for fact-finding missions by special procedures of the United Nations, to

visit Guantánamo Bay and any other detention facility under its de facto control.

39. The Committee invites the State party to reconsider its express intention not to become

party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

CAT/C/USA/CO/2

page 12

40. The Committee reiterates its recommendation that the State party should consider

withdrawing its reservations, declarations and understandings lodged at the time of ratification of

the Convention.

41. The Committee encourages the State party to consider making the declaration under

article 22, thereby recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive and consider

individual communications, as well as ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention.

42. The Committee requests the State party to provide detailed statistical data, disaggregated

by sex, ethnicity and conduct, on complaints related to torture and ill-treatment allegedly

committed by law-enforcement officials, investigations, prosecutions, penalties and disciplinary

action relating to such complaints. It requests the State party to provide similar statistical data

and information on the enforcement of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act by the

Department of Justice, in particular in respect to the prevention, investigation and prosecution of

acts of torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in detention facilities and

the measures taken to implement the Prison Rape Elimination Act and their impact. The

Committee requests the State party to provide information on any compensation and

rehabilitation provided to victims. The Committee encourages the State party to create a federal

database to facilitate the collection of such statistics and information which assist in the

assessment of the implementation of the provisions of the Convention and the practical

enjoyment of the rights it provides. The Committee also requests the State party to provide

information on investigations into the alleged ill-treatment perpetrated by law-enforcement

personnel in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

43. The Committee requests the State party to provide, within one year, information on its

response to its recommendations in paragraphs 16, 20, 21, 22, 24, 33, 34 and 42 above.

44. The Committee requests the State party to disseminate its report, with its addenda and the

written answers to the Committee’s list of issues and oral questions and the conclusions and

recommendations of the Committee widely, in all appropriate languages, through official

websites, the media and non-governmental organizations.

45. The State party is invited to submit its next periodic report, which will be considered as

its fifth periodic report, by 19 November 2011, the due date of the fifth periodic report.

—–

So much for pre election promises from these so called honourable people in charge of protecting UK citizens from unjust legal practices like the UK /US extradition treaty.

The Government must honour the very basic concepts and long standing values of protecting UK citizens from unfair trials and Illegal extradition.

This is the kind of restraint potential suicide risks will have to endure.

XR 5000 Prisoners stun

Here is the stun belt also used on Medium to Maximum security prisoners during transportation to court even when none convicted.

Any further information need or you face unjust extradition, please email me or call on 01506 491 878 ask for Brian Howes.

Well I have found the time to start writing an update to the Illegal extradition proceedings that my wife and I face, and of-course the effect on our 5 children aged 1 to 12. Tomorrow I will probably see my QC his name is of no matter, and I see my solicitor Gerard Considine if he turns up in Edinburgh with the QC. Gerry Considine called me in 2008 to ask if I wanted him as my solicitor and after loosing in the Sheriffs court and being assured he … Read More

via UK Citizens Extradition Fight

Well I have found the time to start writing an update to the Illegal extradition proceedings that my wife and I face, and of-course the effect on our 5 children aged 1 to 12. Tomorrow I will probably see my QC his name is of no matter, and I see my solicitor Gerard Considine if he turns up in Edinburgh with the QC. Gerry Considine called me in 2008 to ask if I wanted him as my solicitor and after loosing in the Sheriffs court and being assured he … Read More

via UK Citizens Extradition Fight

Tomorrow I will probably see my QC his name is of no matter, and I see my solicitor Gerard Considine if he turns up in Edinburgh with the QC.

Gerry Considine called me in 2008 to ask if I wanted him as my solicitor and after loosing in the Sheriffs court and being assured he would do better I agreed to place my life in his hands. When I met Gerry Considine the first time he had high spirits and told me how he had just received an text from Kenny Macaskill inviting him for lunch, I thought he was well connected and then Mr Considine told me that his friend the Justice Minister might be able to do deal with his counterpart in the US to stop our extradition.

Well what I ended up with was a trainee solicitor turning up at meetings who had less knowledge than myself about extradition and many mistakes in the case.

When in the high court I am blamed for delays even when the delays are a direct result of my own legal team, and have nothing to do with me.

Gerry Considine has only turned up for a couple of hearings and there has been dozens of them, He sends an agent in Edinburgh to take notes which turn into Chinese whispers by the time my solicitor gets them, getting them and acting on information received if widespread it would indicate that many innocent people are in prison through the neglect of their case by their solicitor.

Gerry Considine now says he is not friends with Kenny Macaskill or even has lunch with him, well either I am lying or Gerry Considine is! and it is not me!

Mr Considine has persistently not returned my calls or emails for long periods of time which has had the effect of making the judges in the case think it is me not being ready for court hearings when in fact it is the incompetent way my case has been handled that has given rise to these delays.

A for instance is: At the last high court hearing the QC intimated that all lines of inquiry had been completed, but in reality several lines of inquiry were and are ongoing with possible Judicial review against the extradition treaty with the US and the extradition act being looked in to.

This is not just the sort of opinion and inquiry that is being sought but just a sample of what the judges should of been told on my behalf. If Mr Considine wishes to deny what I have written then I will produce the correspondence to prove what is the truth! another example of delays is when I want to do a judicial review Mr Considine says the Legal aid certificate is not valid for a Judicial review and in any case he says that his firm of solicitors do not do that type of work.

I searched for over a year for another firm who could challenge the Legality of the UK / US extradition treaty and found many in England who could do it but no legal aid was forthcoming, I came full circle after an Edinburgh firm who did Judicial review contacted my QC who had previously said he did not want to challenge the treaty and my solicitor wrote to me words to that effect over a year ago. This Edinburgh firm contacted me to say that my QC was interested and wanted to meet me about six weeks ago and when I consulted with him in Edinburgh he said he wanted to revisit the treaty and sounded very optimistic about the challenge and even asked what arguments others had intimated to me, I made sure he and later my solicitor had contact details of chambers in England who wanted to challenge the UK / US treaty and the extradition act but never were called.

To go back a bit, not only did Gerard Considine solicit me as a client he then proceeded to give details of my wife’s next solicitor who he Mr Considine recommended and when we called him he said “you won’t get a fair trial in Edinburgh” he also said my wife would have to bypass Edinburgh High court and go strait to the ECHR in which he was an expert. John Carroll then proceeded to not take his clients instructions and even when advised by Philip Dutton that my wife was unfit to be extradited he refused to take on the argument, in the end John Carroll solicitor advocate tried to force my ill wife to fire him so she would not get any further representation at an extradition hearing, thankfully my wife refused and John Carroll and legal team had to approach the three Lords and ask to withdraw which the Law Lords allowed but asked for reports on what happened, the Law Lords were kind enough to give my wife three months to find a new solicitor and advocate but may not have if she had fired them.

If you did not know it solicitors are “always right” “never lie” “always return calls” and “do not have their own political agenda” Well if you believe that you are probably deluded in some way.

Before I go any further I want to point out that my wife and I have never been a flight risk or ever will be, even when the PF was threatening me daily with revocation of my bail we always turned up, I mention this as when QC’s and solicitors do not like the truth coming out they can be very vindictive and have not been unknown to get a client remanded to shut them up. So for the record my wife and I will fight to the last, but never run.

John Carroll my wife’s last solicitor who was also a Prosecutor and a police officer before that was recommended by my current solicitor Gerard Considine. Are you getting the picture? Gerard Considine came to me in 2008 without me asking, he just happens to be friends with he justice minister Kenny Macaskill and now denies it, Gerard Considine then recommends John Carroll an ex prosecutor and cop who tries to pervert justice in my wife’s case. Then the QC he hires is an SNP supporter who with Considine has tried to stop me appealing the decision of Kenny Macaskill the justice minister.

They are all SNP supporters and the QC has worked just recently for the SNP party in a case against the BBC and the English government. Files have gone missing time has been wasted, I have been lied too and betrayed by my legal team.

The QC is right “extradition is political” that is because it is not good enough to have a top QC, he also has to be on the political side your not fighting to stand any chance of winning.

If I relied on my so called legal team to defend an Illegal extradition / rendition then we would already be in the Arizona desert a long time ago.

Fitzpatrick and Co, home to GBA executive member Gerard Considine, took in £1,107,900 in criminal and children’s fees since 2003, which contributed to a total legal aid subsidy of £1,577, 600. this is a story from 2008.

What you going to do Mr Considine? use a PR firm to defame my name now? like you used when Head of the Glasgow Bar?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Justice secretary Kenny MacAskill MSP, who concedes that there are problems with the system, said: “I regret that the Glasgow Bar Association have paid lobbyists in order to trawl around for mistakes. It doesn’t serve them well.

“We want to reward lawyers for doing their job, not have people playing the system. Unfortunately, it does seem that a small minority of lawyers want to persist in milking the system.

My solicitor was head of the Glasgow Bar at the time. Gerard Considine needs to stand down with grace from my case he has blundered his way through and may off collected legal aid for many consultations I have not had!………………..

You may be asking how does this effect my case and that is a good question? My solicitor is a freind of Kenny Macaskill at the time Gerard Considine was head of the Glasgow Bar and Kenny Macaskill was condemning milking the legal system without mentioning his friends name: Mr Considine.

Mr Considine has tried to stop me from any Judicial review of his friends Kenny Macaskill decision to extradite my wife and I. How can I trust a liar and how can I trust a solicitor that is a friend of the justice minister Kenny Macaskill?

Mr Considine has repeatedly had the QC and advocate lie to the judges in my case and enough is enough!

Justice in extradition is almost impossible, below is an extract of my QC’s opinion on  challenging the treaty.

1. Although this review is a matter of some interest to Mr Howes in the sense that it might be prayed in aid of an attempt to postpone a resumption of his extradition appeal, it does not seem to me relevant to the issue I am asked to address in this opinion. Rather, it emphasises the political nature of the issue…………………………………………………………..

When Kenny Macaskill let a terrorist go after murdering 270 people without mercy he did it for his own personnel gain, when he signed my wife’s and my extradition papers he did it with even more ease even though evidence has not been shown and we were Illegally remanded for 214 days.

This is an insight in to the Injustice Minister Kenny Macaskill and the InHuman rights minister Kenny Macaskill, Macaskill is so yellow bellied that he will not answer questions to four congressmen but at the same time he is willing for my wife and I to be remanded in the Arizona desert for up to three years while our children are adopted. Kenny Macaskill you are not fit for you position as if and when my wife and I are extradited without a shred of evidence you will surely be responsible. If an extradition request for you comes to Scotland, “Will you go without a fight?” let us face it Macaskill you sign extradition papers without a thought for Human Rights but dare not answer questions in the US. I do not think you should have to answer questions in congress but why should my wife and I?

Kenny Macaskill you let a terrorist go and that is more evidence than is against my wife and I, you say Scotland is compassionate yet you show more compassion for a terrorist who was never dying than a husband and wife team with 5 kids who as some of your own ministers have said “have broken no laws”

You Illegally signed our extradition in 2008 and we will fight that decision and you will no longer be able to make your own rules as the Lobby money comes in. I will send O’bama my best wishes for you!

……………………………..update 28-07-10 1AM…………………………………….

It’s time to show how political the UK / US extradition treaty is here in Scotland: I must say with great reluctance that my QC Mungo Bovey is an SNP supporter and agreed to make an opinion to challenge the legality of the UK / US extradition treaty, this was not in my opinion to make a true opinion on challenging the treaty but an attempt to stop any challenge in Scotland against the SNP party who I find through research he is not only a member of but was up for selection as a candidate for the SNP in 1998 and recently and currently is working for the SNP ministers against the BBC to force the BBC to allow Alex Salmond on BBC debates.

So to cut a long story short, not only is my solicitor is a friend of Kenny Macaskill the justice minister but my QC has a serious conflict of interest that has wasted a lot of time in my case.

Last night I emailed my solicitor again highlighting that I want him to take himself of my case in order that I can gain other representation that has no conflict of interest and can represent me properly and I told him the alternative is to have my soon to be legal team write a several page list of the reasons for needing a change of solicitor, I give him until 12PM today.

Mr Considine has asked me not to challenge the justice minister many times and so has Mr Bovey QC. For the record I am putting forward this information to try and protect myself and family from persecution from my own legal team as it looks like they have been working for the SNP party rather than me.

………….to be continued later!

Computer equipment and documents were seized from his Middlesbrough home in 2007 and he was charged with conspiracy to defraud the music industry and copyright infringement.

Police and music industry investigators suggested that he could have made hundreds of thousands of pounds a year from the OiNK website, which he set up in 2004. But Mr Ellis claimed the website was not illegal and that its purpose had been misunderstood.

The former IT consultant, who worked at Virgin Media’s contact centre in Stockton-on-Tees, has compared it to search engines such as Google which could also direct users to illegal music downloads. He is the first person in the UK ever to be charged with illegal file-sharing. He will go on trial at Middlesbrough Crown Court.

The OiNK website was a complex computer programme created to help share music and audio files amongst a community of online users.

Members of the community would “seed” the system by uploading music files or “leech” from it by downloading music files.

To do so they had to register their email address and a user name, then make donations by debit or credit card to ensure full access to the site.

The technology used – a method known as bit torrent file sharing – had three main advantages: It broke files down into small pieces of data, which made that data more easy to share, giving a higher quality download in a shorter time.

The beauty of the system was that each time a person leeched an album from the internet, they became a seeder from whom other OiNK users could download the same album.

Early online file sharing systems were so slow it could be more expensive to download an album than to buy it in a shop.

But advances in technology meant OiNK users could download very high quality music files, very quickly.

Obama shouts and Gordon Brown does exactly what he is ordered to do! The threat this time, if you do not install the scanners US people will not use UK Airlines.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has given the go-ahead for full body scanners to be introduced at Britain’s airports.

BAA, which runs six UK airports, said it would now install the machines “as soon as is practical” at Heathrow.

Experts have questioned the scanners’ effectiveness at detecting the type of bomb allegedly used on Christmas Day in an attempted plane attack over Detroit.

The US is also introducing tougher checks for air passengers from nations deemed to have links with terrorism.

A group of British MPs is suing the CIA to get it to release information about alleged UK involvement in the secret rendition of terror suspects.

The group – led by Conservative MP Andrew Tyrie – has filed a complaint in a district court in Washington DC.

They want a judicial review of the CIA’s failure to disclose information.

They are demanding to see documents on extraordinary rendition, secret detention and the coercive interrogation of suspected terrorists.

“ I hope that this groundbreaking litigation will lead to comprehensive disclosure in the US ”
Andrew Tyrie, Conservative MP

Follow me on Twitter @Brian_Howes Click for my Twitter

News Media: You can call Brian Howes Direct on 01506 491 878 or Email: brian@howes.uk.net

Polanski Thanks Backers as Extradition Wait Goes On

Reuters

PARIS

Roman Polanski has thanked people who have sent messages of support during his battle to avoid extradition from Switzerland to the United States over a case of having sex with a 13-year-old in 1977.

“These messages have come from my neighbors, from people all over Switzerland and from beyond Switzerland — from across the world,” the Oscar-winning film director wrote in an open letter published on the website of French intellectual Bernard-Henri Levy.

“I would like every one of them to know how heartening it is, when one is locked up in a cell, to hear this murmur of human voices and of solidarity in the morning mail,” he wrote.

Polanski, who holds dual French and Polish citizenship, was arrested at the request of U.S. authorities when he flew into Switzerland on September 26 to receive a lifetime achievement award at a film festival.

The 76-year-old director is now under house arrest at his chalet in the ski resort of Gstaad, facing extradition to the United States where he could be sentenced for having sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977.

He fled the country in 1978 on the eve of sentencing because he believed a judge might put him in jail for 50 years, despite a plea bargaining agreement.

The Swiss Justice Ministry has said it would decide next year whether to extradite the director, whose films include “The Pianist,” for which he won an Academy Award, “Rosemary’s Baby,” “Chinatown” and “Repulsion.”

(Writing by James Mackenzie)