UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Dec > Dec 12

Re: Gary McKinnon Radio Drama

From: Dave Haith <visions.nul>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:58:31 -0000
Archived: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:25:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Gary McKinnon Radio Drama


>From: Dave Haith <visions.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates <UFOupdates.nul>
>Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 15:38:30 -0000
>Subject: Gary McKinnon Radio Drama

>Listers may be interested that there is a radio play being
>broadcast by the BBC Radio 4 service in the UK this coming
>Wednesday afternoon about Gary McKinnon the UFO hacker
>facing deportation.

>This site will lead you to a link where you will be able
>to listen to this play for one week after transmission:

>http://www.freegary.org.uk:80/

Further to this I now understand - see below - there will be a
legal documentary program called Unreliable Evidence the same
evening.


THE MCKINNON EXTRADITION
A  new Afternoon Play will tell the true story of Gary Mckinnon,
a British citizen who is fighting extradition to the US, which
wants to put him on trial on charges of hacking into government
computers. The American prosector has said he wants to see
McKinnon "fry" and even if they can't execute him, they are
pressing for 60 years in jail. This play will go hand in hand
with an edition of Unreliable Evidence, the legal discussion
programme, fronted by former barrister Clive Anderson.

http://tinyurl.com/2uxkts

Gary's mother Janis has been in touch with a friend of mine
called Matthew Williams.

Below - in the interests of Gary's story getting heard -
I'll paste her letter to Matthew



Subject: Gary McKinnon From Janis


Hi Mathew, you probably know that Radio 4 are doing a play about
Gary on 12th December at 2.15pm and that a related programme
about unfair extradition will be presented by Clive Anderson.
It's called "Unreliable Evidence" and will be aired at 8pm on
Radio 4 on the same evening.

I don't know if Clive Anderson is the friend of yours that you
spoke of and whether or not you helped to get this off the
ground but if so; I was hoping you could pass on a letter that I
sent to the judges which was used in evidence in Gary's case, as
it proves that the diplomatic note is not worth the paper it is
written on it.

One letter includes evidence I used and the second letter is a
statement I had to write to the court as they refused to believe
that I had written the first letter entirely on my own without
help from any lawyer or solicitor. (which included evidence
regarding another case where the US had renagued on a promise
not to request the death penalty)

Let me know if you're unable to get this to Clive Anderson and
I'll try and get it to him myself.

www.abovethetitle.com "The McKinnon Extradition"

Many Thanks

Janis (Garys mum)

Below is Gary's Mum's letter to the judge:

Dear Judge,

I am the mother of Gary McKinnon and I am greatly concerned for
my son's future safety. I would therefore like to present a
letter, which includes some of my deepest concerns and is
followed by a statement of facts that I would like to present to
the court. I would be grateful if you could possibly consider
these points before passing judgement on my son's extradition
case.

Gary is a kind and gentle human being with no previous criminal
convictions.

He had a long-term girlfriend of fourteen years and would often
take her younger brothers and nieces to and from school in
Crouch End before going to work in the morning. His relationship
broke up as a direct result of this case.

Gary is a self-taught computer enthusiast who was interested in
finding out about the feasibility of anti gravity technology. He
only had access to his girlfriend's very basic computer, which
had a dial up connection.

Gary would never have deliberately damaged any computer
files.

I understand that without proof of a certain amount of
financial damage the US authorities could not prosecute
Gary.

Gary maintains that he did not cause the alleged damage.

In the original US indictment, Gary was accused of unauthorised
computer access to US military establishments and to several
civilian establishments, including US universities.

When the US universities/civilian establishments, denied that
Gary had caused any damage, the US government proceeded to
remove all the civilian establishments from the indictment
against Gary.

I am extremely concerned that the US government seems now to be
trying to portray my son Gary as a terrorist.

Gary is now clearly included in the American military's handbook
of terrorism when referring to cyber terrorism, as was
previously brought to your attention by Edmund Lawson, my son's
barrister.

Gary is and always has been a gentle, kind and compassionate
person who cares deeply about the world in which we live.

The 9/11 event deeply upset Gary and he could not understand why
the US military had not scrambled fighter jets in an attempt to
protect it's citizens and did not have helicopters hovering
outside the building in an attempt to rescue people who were
jumping from the windows of the stricken building.

I am afraid that the United States Government may be negatively
influenced by any belief they have that Gary may previously have
shared an increasingly held conspiratorial view of the events of
9/11 and that this belief by the US government may have been
instrumental in the US arresting Gary several years after his
alleged computer misuse.

I believe the US government arrested Gary after they had
gained a legal advantage when the new extradition act was
introduced by the UK government despite it not being
ratified by the US government.

This treaty is extremely unlikely to ever be ratified by the US
as it is against their constitution.

I understood that treaties could not be retrospective? So I do
not understand how this un-ratified treaty can now apparently be
used retrospectively UK citizens are being treated as second-
class citizens, as the UK cannot extradite American citizens
without presenting Prima Facie evidence.

It is accepted that lengths of sentences are used by the
government as deterrents to crime.

When Gary was first questioned, the UK police informed him
that he was likely to face a community service sentence,
however the CPS decided several years ago, not to prosecute
Gary.

For Gary now to be told that he faces a possible sixty years in
a US prison is extremely frightening.

It is obvious that virtually no one would attempt to contravene
the computer misuse act if they knew that a sentence of even two
years or more was a possibility. Sixty years is a terrifying
prospect; however in today's climate of fear and scare
mongering, it is nevertheless a strong possibility that this
length of sentence could be imposed. I feel this is so out of
proportion to the alleged crime of computer misuse.

The UK police took Gary's hard drives to America and these were
never returned to him. I believe that taking and holding alleged
evidence in another country can be detrimental to Gary's right
to be tried in his own country.

We trust British Justice implicitly and do not agree that
America has a similar judicial system. The thought of my son
being extradited to America fills me with fear. I am afraid that
he may be sent to a military facility such as Guantanamo Bay or
that he may even face the death penalty as in a secret meeting
with Gary's lawyers at the US Embassy, threats were made against
Gary if he would not agree to a plea bargain and they were told
that one state wanted Gary to "Fry".

The fact that my son Gary has now been included in the US
military handbook of terrorism proves that my fears are not
unfounded.

I have included details of the following case, which I feel
proves that assurances given by the US government cannot be
relied upon. The US government have apparently reneged on
guarantees given to France, not to request the death penalty in
the case of Zacarias Moussaoui.

I have highlighted the important sections in bold.


FACTS: Zacarias Moussaoui, a French citizen is now facing the
death penalty in America despite assurances previously being
given to the French government that this would not happen.

The reason given for consideration of the death sentence
being carried out on Zacarias Moussaoui was that because he
apparently lied to the FBI three weeks before the September
11th attacks, that his lies may have stopped the prevention
of deaths in the 9/11 attacks. (See facts below)
(To consider  sentencing someone to death for the crime of
lying is yet another chilling prospect)

War on terrorism

April 3, 2006: a US jury found Zacarias Moussaoui eligible for
the death penalty, and the convicted Sept. 11 conspirator
shouted as he was led out of the court: "You'll never get my
blood. God curse you all."

The same 12-person federal panel was due to return three days
later to begin a second phase of his sentencing trial and decide
whether he would be executed for his role in the hijacked
airliner attacks or sentenced to life in prison. After about 17
hours of deliberation, the jury found that Moussaoui lied to the
FBI following his arrest three weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks
and the lies led to deaths in the hijacked airliner attacks that
killed nearly 3,000 people.

"Your findings mean we move on to phase two where the jury...
ultimately (has) to make a final decision as to what sentence
will be imposed," said US District Judge Leonie Brinkema.
Moussaoui was the only person to be charged in the United States
in connection with Sept. 11. In 2005 the 37-year-old Frenchman
of Moroccan descent pleaded guilty to six counts of conspiracy
in connection with the deadly hijackings. Three of the counts
carried a possible death sentence. (Sources: Reuters,
03/04/2006)

March 6, 2006: lawyers for the US government demanded the death
penalty in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui who they said could
have chosen to prevent the September 11 attacks. Moussaoui, a
37-year-old French citizen, sat quietly during the opening of
the sentencing phase of his trial in Alexandria, Virginia,
scrutinising the jury who must decide whether he is to be
executed or imprisoned for life.

"He lied so the plot could proceed unimpeded," prosecuting
attorney Rob Spencer told the court. "With that lie, he caused
the deaths of nearly 3,000 people. He rejoiced in the death and
destruction. Had Moussaoui just told the truth, it would all
have been different."

As relatives of those killed on September 11 watched on a
network of closed circuit TVs across the eastern US, Spencer
described "a loyal al-Qaida soldier" who had detailed
foreknowledge of the attacks. But Moussaoui's defence team - who
were appointed by the court, and whom he refused to recognise -
 instead painted a picture of a fantasist who knew nothing of
9/11, and whose self-confessed dreams of launching other
terrorist attacks were miles beyond his capability. "That is
Zacarias Moussaoui in a nutshell," defence lawyer Edward
MacMahon said. "Sound and fury, signifying nothing."

To achieve the death penalty, the prosecution had to convince
the jury that Moussaoui had prior knowledge of September 11.
Then, last April, he pleaded guilty to conspiring with al-Qaida
to hijack planes and commit other crimes - but he continues to
maintain his plans were unrelated to September 11. He says he
planned to hijack a 747 in order to free Omar Abdel-Rahman, the
blind sheikh being held in US custody. His confession rendered
earlier wrangling irrelevant, and means the jury must decide
only his sentence. (Sources: The Guardian, 07/03/2006)

March 3, 2006: the French justice minister reiterated the US had
guaranteed France none of the information it provided for the US
case against al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui would be
used to seek the death penalty.

Pascal Clement, speaking to reporters after a meeting with US
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in Paris, stressed France's
long-standing opposition to the death penalty, and said the two
officials had discussed Moussaoui.

Moussaoui, a Frenchman, pleaded guilty in a US court in April to
conspiring with al-Qaida to fly planes into US buildings, but
said he wasn't involved in al-Qaida's September 11, 2001 plot.
He said he was instead training to fly a 747 jetliner into the
White House as part of a possible later attack.

"I'm quite aware, of course, of the severity of the facts for
which he is blamed and has pleaded guilty," Clement said,
referring to Moussaoui. "However, I reminded the attorney
general of France's position on the death penalty."

"As you know, France has obtained the guarantee that the
information which was transmitted would not be used -
directly or indirectly - toward a request for the death
penalty," he said. (Sources: Dow Jones International News,
03/03/2006)

FACTS

Of the 50 states that make up the United States of America, 38
have the death penalty.

Federal military law also provides for capital punishment. Some
states have laws that prescribe the death penalty for offences
that do not involve the death of someone. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA - Retentionist

Government: Presidential-parliamentary democracy (federal) State
of civil and political rights: Free Constitution: 17 September
1787, in force since 4 March 1789 Legal System: based on common
law Legislative System: bicameral Congress (Senate and House of
Representatives)
Judicial System: Supreme Court
Religion: 47% Protestant; 21% Catholic; 6% Christian; 3%
Orthodox; 2% Jewish; 2% Muslim

Method of execution: Lethal Injection, Electrocution,
Hanging, Firing Squad, Lethal Gas
Executions: 10
Executions since 1976: 1014
Prisoners on death row: 3.471 (as of October 1, 2004)

http://www.handsoffcain.org/bancadati/schedastato.php?idstato=3D8000503&idco=
ntinente=3D26


Legislation

March 9, 2006: President George W. Bush signed into law a
Patriot Act renewal that will allow the government to keep using
terror-fighting tools passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The legislation will allow states to obtain approval of
their systems of representation in death penalty cases from
the U.S. Attorney General rather than from the federal
courts, as required under a previous law.

Habeas corpus petitions alleging constitutional error in death
verdicts will be put on a fast track for resolution. (Under the
old law (the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act),
only one state's (Arizona) system of appointment and
compensation for defense counsel had been deemed adequate by the
courts.)

Critics of the new measure fear that U.S. Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales, a strong death penalty proponent, will allow
the faster appeals in many states that have failed to meet basic
standards for competent defense representation. They also worry
that the short timelines will deter private attorneys from
taking capital cases in federal court, and could leave some
people on death row without counsel altogether. (Sources: Ap,
10/03/2006; The (Calif.) Daily Journal, Ap, 08/03/2006)

On March 31, 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ)
ordered the United States to "review and reconsider" the cases
of 51 Mexicans facing execution. The Hague-based court ruled
that Washington violated international law by not informing the
51 Mexicans that they were entitled to consular or legal help
from their government as it must under the 1963 Vienna
Convention. Mexico had taken the case to the ICJ on January 21,
2003. Mexico's suit before the ICJ, also known as the World
Court, concerned capital cases in California, Texas, Arizona,
Arkansas, Florida, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma and Oregon.

On February 28, 2005, the White House ordered state courts to
examine appeals made by 51 Mexican citizens held on death row.
Several days later, on March 7, 2005, Secretary of State
Condoleeza Rice, informed UN General Secretary Kofi Annan that
the United States was withdrawing from the Vienna Treaty's
Protocol on Consular Relations. The United States would continue
to recognise the right of foreign citizens arrested in the US to
meet with an official of their own country but they would not
give the International Court of Justice the power to make
rulings on appeals made by foreign citizens who claim they were
denied of such rights. In 2004, the issue of the death penalty
did not create any great divisions on the domestic political
level. In the campaign for the White House, President George W.
Bush, firm backer of executions, did not show any shift in his
stance. The contender for the White House, Jhon Kerr, Catholic,
had first declared himself against executions but then corrected
himself saying he was in favour of the death penalty for
terrorists.


MY LETTER CONTINUED..

It seems that the world is gripped by a state of fear that seems
out of proportion to the facts. I am very afraid that my son
Gary is being unfairly used as an example in order to prevent
unauthorised access to computers by other computer users.
However I believe that the threat of any danger will not come
from people like Gary but will come from people who are
terrorists and will probably not be deterred whatever deterrents
are imposed.

The US Government is responsible for their own Internet security
and will like any other government, have to continually tighten
its security in order to combat any possible threats.

I am greatly concerned that the US government's security is so
poor.

Gary is far from the computer expert the US claims him to be and
there are a great many computer administrators and teenagers
with knowledge that far exceeds Gary's.

I am very afraid for my son's safety and of any possible
extradition to America. We are not a wealthy family and would
find it financially difficult to visit our son in America should
he be sent there and kept in custody for up to several years
whilst awaiting trial.

The possible length of sentence of ten years per count (I
believe there was at least seven counts against Gary) is
terrifying and we feel it is greatly out of proportion to the
alleged computer misuse offence. The possible sentence of sixty
years fills our family with dread and we do feel that the US
government intends to make an example of our son Gary.

My husband and I foster large sibling groups of children for
many London local authority's. We have fostered twenty-three
children in less than four years and have turned around the
lives of many children, some originally with severe behavioural
problems.

All of our ex foster children are very fond of Gary and enjoyed
his visits. He is a very patient person and would sometimes help
the children with their reading and would listen to accounts of
their achievements.

It is therefore all the more sad for us to see our own gentle
and caring son in this dreadful predicament.

Gary has been using his time productively although he is
virtually unable to work with computers due to his bail
conditions. He has been giving some of his time free of charge
to impart advice on Internet security.

I feel it's important to point out that Gary was free to use the
Internet for several years after being questioned by the UK
police in early 2002 and prior to his arrest in 2005 and he did
not abuse this in any way.

Instead Gary chose to spend much of his time writing music.

Gary composes music and some of his musical compositions are
used in a film, which is regularly screened on the Community
channel, which is a government-sponsored channel on Sky TV.
Although the film is musically orientated, it also reflects on
many serious social issues.

Other musical compositions by Gary are to be used for planned
animations of a children's book, which helps to educate children
about London Squares and the landmarks that surround them. The
book is used in some primary schools to assist in teaching
children about road safety and the importance of staying close
to family and not getting lost.

Gary is our only child and is an essential part of our lives and
of our future.

Gary is once again in a secure and happy relationship and he has
(depending on the outcome of this case) a glowing future ahead
of him. His partner Lucy is thirty-nine years old and they are
keen to marry and start a family as Lucy's biological clock is
currently ticking away.

Gary is a good and very caring person and we have all
carried the heavy burden of this case for the past four
years. We have always been a happy family but the cloud
hanging over our heads has been a sentence in itself.

Bearing in mind the frightening possibilities that could take
place were Gary to be extradited; I beg the court to consider
allowing my son Gary to be tried in the UK, in his own country.


Yours Sincerely

Janis Sharp.


Below is a statement by Janis asserting she DID write the above
letter.

(I have taken out her address so she isn't hassled but I will
make it available to anybody genuinely trying to help Gary)


STATEMENT OF WITNESS

Criminal Justice Act, 1967, sect 9;  M.C Rules, 1981, r.70)
(Magistrates' Court Act, 1980,  s102)


Statement of  :           Janis Sharp
Age of Witness (DOB) :            Over 21
Occupation and qualifications of witness :            Mother
of defendant
Postal Address :

This statement, consisting of  3   pages each signed by me, is
true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it
knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable
to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I
know to be false or do not believe to be true.


Statement of:     Janis Sharp

I, Janis Sharp, am making this statement regarding a letter
written by me, initially to Judge Nicholas Evans. This letter
(with very minor updates) was subsequently passed on to both
Judges currently presiding over my son Gary McKinnon's appeal
hearing.

For reasons which I fail to understand; Justice Nicholas Evans,
Lord Justice Maurice Kay and Mr. Justice Goldring, apparently
are having difficulty in believing that I have written this
letter on my own without the help or input of a solicitor

I therefore confirm that I wrote the said letter entirely on my
own and included information I obtained from the internet
regarding the case of Zacarias Moussaoui.

I was disturbed by the fact that on April 3rd 2006 Zacharias
Moussaoui was found by the American court to be eligible for the
death penalty "for lying". This was despite the American
government having given France an assurance that the death
penalty would not be called for and that the evidence provided
by France would not be used in this way.

Only the vote of one juror prevented the death sentence
being imposed.

No part of my letter was written by a solicitor or by anyone
else, although some quotes, including those from the Zacarias
Moussaoui case (obtained by me from the internet) may have been
quoted to Reuters etc. by a legal source.

I am puzzled as to why the Judiciary find it difficult to
believe that a mother could write such a letter and I feel
that they must underestimate the intelligence of the average
parent.

My education as unremarkable. I attended North Kelvinside School
in Glasgow and I left school when I was fifteen years old. I
married four days after my sixteenth birthday and gave birth to
my son Gary when I was seventeen years old. My leanings were
towards an artistic career but the prospect of going on to
University held no appeal for me.

I have since composed and released many songs and have written
and directed films, one of which has had more than forty
screenings on television.

My husband and I have also fostered thirty children in the past
four years and we have written and illustrated a children's book
which has been relatively successful.

I am a reasonably intelligent person and am aware of what is
happening in the world around me.

My son's life is virtually at stake and it is not difficult to
research other legal cases on the internet and to absorb,
understand and quote information that relates to the extradition
law, etc.

In regard to my sons case I have used the internet to the full
and continue to do so, as it is vitally important that I have as
much knowledge as possible, to pass on to anyone who may be  in
a position to help my son.

I watched the debate on Extradition held in the House of Commons
and was shocked that John Reid and Joan Ryan appeared to have
little understanding of Labours own extradition treaty with the
United States.

I wrote to almost every MP regarding my sons' case and
provided them with information relating to the unratified
extradition treaty with America.

Fortunately Dominique Grieve was already aware (as was I) that
we are the only country in the world that will extradite their
own citizens to America without prima facie evidence being
required.

Initially the House of Commons had voted against the lop sided
treaty but this was only a token vote.

During the second debate at the House; Dominique Grieve's
eloquent arguments against the one sided extradition treaty,
were remarkable in their content but unfortunately; a great many
of the MP's present did not have the courage or honour to vote
as they believed but instead simply abstained during the actual
vote.  This was a great disappointment to us.

Although the American senate have "recommended" the
ratification of the extradition treaty with the UK; the
treaty remains unratified.

Ratification cannot take effect or become law unless the
President of America signs the treaty. This has not happened and
as this treaty goes against the American constitution; it is
highly improbable that this will ever happen.

Despite this; the UK government is currently extraditing British
citizens on the strength of an unratified treaty denying UK
citizens of their right to prima facie evidence having to be
provided prior to extradition. UK citizens are thereby
effectively being treated as second class citizens in the world.

In his judgment, by declaring the prosecution's allegations
against my son as fact; Justice Evans was basically and publicly
pronouncing my son guilty of the charges levelled at him by the
US, without my son's legal team having the opportunity to
contest the allegations and to defend the case against him.

It has now been five years since my son was first arrested and
this has devastated our family and has been a gruelling sentence
in itself.

The fact that the US government waited until the UK government
signed this "treaty"  and made it retrospective before re-
arresting my son in 2005, seems very unjust to me, as this gave
the US a tactical legal advantage in my sons case.


I do not believe my son Gary will get a fair trial in America as
it has already been stated that they would prosecute him to the
max if he legally opposed the extradition and did not agree to
their offer of a plea bargain. A plea bargain which could not be
guaranteed once my son  (the accused) was in the United States.

Gary may well be tried under a military tribunal and held in
secret with no right of appeal and no right to talk to the
media. How can this be Justice?

The Diplomatic note of re-assurance given by the US Embassy is
unsigned and in the opinion of many, (myself included) is
therefore not worth the paper it is written on.

Only a signed note by the President could guarantee that Gary
would not be tried under Military order No. 1.

The internet is the biggest multi media library in the world and
is at the fingertips of all who care to use it.

It is not uncommon for mothers to fight to their last breath to
save their child and in this regard, the strength, determination
and intelligence of any mother can never be underestimated.

I am heartbroken but will continue to fight against this
unratified extradition  treaty that has effectively removed
the rights of British citizens to be treated equally and on
a par with their counterparts throughout the world.

I can only pray for true justice to ultimately preside in my
sons case.






Dated this         day of                      2007

Signed : ------------------____________________ Witnessed by :
____________________






has notified the sender that this message has been received.




Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/subscribers/


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com