From: David Griffin
Date: 2008-06-01 21:52:59
Apologies – I know this is a news system and not for comments but I’d like to point out that Andrew has grasped what I’ve had to point out to several ppl contacting me or fwd’ing their letters on this issue… that is that the case at the Law Lords is EXTRADITION based and this needs to be the focus. Not that Gary’s exploits are irrelevant but we need to be direct and focused on what they are considering. It’s been a complex thing to research and I’m sure Gary appreciates all we’ve done to date.DavID, Exo UK On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Andrew Johnson
Hoffmann, L. (Second senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)
Hope of Craighead, L.
Saville of Newdigate, L.
Scott of Foscote, L.
Rodger of Earlsferry, L.
Walker of Gestingthorpe, L.
Hale of Richmond, B.
Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, L.
Neuberger of Abbotsbury, L. This table below has been extracted from Judicial Sittings Diaries and shows the subject matter under scrutiny. Case Code Subject Agents McKinnon (Appellant) v Government of the United States of America (Respondents) and another 
EWHC 762 (Admin)
Extradition – United States – Coercive plea bargaining – threats
abuse of process – disproportionate sentence – arbitrary denial of repatriation – undertakings as to treatment upon return – enemy combatant
A. Kaim Todner
R. Crown Prosecution Service
Contacting Law Lords and/or Representatives: Please send brief letters or request your call messages be noted and passed on to any of those listed above. Please be polite and straight forward – abusive or angry comments may hurt the case more than help it. Enquiries should be directed to: The Judicial Office, House of Lords, London SW1A 0PW telephone 020-7219 3111 facsimile 020-7219 2476 If you need either a list of points or a template letter, please contact us and we’ll forward a copy of the one we’ve used to date. Re: Gary McKinnon Appeal Hearing Dear Law Lords, I am writing with regard to the proposed extradition of British Citizen Gary McKinnon for offences related to computer mis-use (hacking) in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. I must ask you to overrule Judge Nicholas Evans’s decision of 10th May 2006 to allow extradition. There are a number of grounds on which the only sensible course of action should be judged: 1. As far as I am aware, the extradition treaty between the UK and the USA has not been ratified by the US Congress and therefore should not be binding (we are therefore not obliged to allow the extradition). 2. Gary has confessed to a crime and should be prosecuted on this basis – in this country. It would seem that his prosecution has not been carried forward, so that the extradition treaty (void though it is) would seem to allow his extradition (i.e., if I interpret the treaty correctly, if a defendant has been prosecuted for a crime, he cannot be extradited for it). It is a complete mystery why the CPS has not moved forward with the prosecution and this in itself should be the subject of an investigation. 3. Gary was originally arrested in 2002 and it was said at the time he would face something like 6 months community service. Following a trip to the USA by Police, this “suddenly” became a much longer sentence. 4. Gary has already been “strung along” by the system for the last 4 years – even though he has confessed to his crime. This should count already as a “suspended sentence”. 5. As far as I am aware, the prosecution have produced no tangible evidence of the damage he caused. 6. Gary has disclosed the methods he used to obtain access to the systems concerned. What he did was akin to walking around a neighbourhood, looking for open doors and windows (which he found) and then going in and having a look around inside. Of course, this can be viewed as a type of trespassing – so why does this attract such a stiff sentence? 7. There are Human Rights laws to be considered here – and as such, for example, I have previously sent a copy of this letter to Amnesty International, whom I hoped would offer some input into this matter. 8. Gary has clearly stated what his intentions were and it seems to me that there should be much stronger indications that Gary’s intent was malicious before extradition was allowed. From my own research (which has been ongoing for perhaps a period of 10 years), I know, through expert witness testimony, that what Gary says he found does indeed exist. (I would refer you to Donna Hare’s Disclosure Project testimony from 2001 which partly corroborates McKinnon’s findings). So, when you have considered these 8 points, I hope that you will realise that allowing extradition would basically mean: Seeing a punishment administered which does not fit the crime. A disregard of Human Rights. A contravention of law, as there is none which has been finalised to allow extradition to take place. Please make the correct decision – for Gary’s sake, the sake of the law, national sovereignty and human rights. Yours Most Sincerely, Andrew Johnson Are you interested in what’s really going on in the world, behind the facade? Then…www.checktheevidence… happened on 9/11?www.drjudywood.com/