| Pages:
1
2
3 |
mr.crow
National Hazard
Posts: 884
Registered: 9-9-2009
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: 0xFF
|
|
Don't read this if you don't want to be pissed off
This is buffalo bullshit. Basically whatever JohnWW says about this will be true.
http://extradition.org.uk/2009/04/27/couple-faces-extraditio...
|
|
|
Sedit
International Hazard
Posts: 1939
Registered: 23-11-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Manic Expressive
|
|
Im not pissed.
| Quote: | | The couple ran a legal chemical business — Lab Chemicals International — until targeted by undercover agents posing as buyers after a tip-off by
one American citizen. |
Sounds like the DEA busted a methlab and these people got ratted out. No way in hell is the US going to go thru all of this without 100% knowledge
that these folks knew they where selling it to someone wanting to cook. Think of an undercover prostitution sting where you don't solicite the money
they wait for the jane to set the terms then they takem down. Until I hear more on the case I can't really say I feel for them one bit. They are a
chemical company and as such I am sure they know the status of RP/I2 in the US. Fireworks and animal medication...? Spare me the sob story really.
They got caught and it happends when you play hard ball. But as such you must face what you know may come from it.
Knowledge is useless to useless people...
"I see a lot of patterns in our behavior as a nation that parallel a lot of other historical processes. The fall of Rome, the fall of Germany — the
fall of the ruling country, the people who think they can do whatever they want without anybody else's consent. I've seen this story
before."~Maynard James Keenan
|
|
|
mr.crow
National Hazard
Posts: 884
Registered: 9-9-2009
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: 0xFF
|
|
Of course the US buyers wanted to cook with it, and it was dumb selling to them.
That being said I find it hard to believe a Scottish family would be part of a drug ring by running a legal company and operating within the laws.
Living in UK and having the US swoop in and destroy their lives is reprehensible, especially using bullshit laws made after 9-11
Basically the way they were treated makes me upset
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
This the much-debated KNO3.com case---the thread was recently activated by a scammer!
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=7127
[Edited on 17-11-2009 by hissingnoise]
|
|
|
Sedit
International Hazard
Posts: 1939
Registered: 23-11-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Manic Expressive
|
|
Is this that same case? I don't know much about the KNO3 case. How did it turn out then?
Knowledge is useless to useless people...
"I see a lot of patterns in our behavior as a nation that parallel a lot of other historical processes. The fall of Rome, the fall of Germany — the
fall of the ruling country, the people who think they can do whatever they want without anybody else's consent. I've seen this story
before."~Maynard James Keenan
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
Let's just say, they wouldn't have done what they did had they kno(3)n about the provisions in the treaty. . .
Though his case is not chemistry-related I have a bit more sympathy for this guy. . .
http://search-result.com/rssrelay/?http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/...
|
|
|
GordonBrown
Harmless
Posts: 6
Registered: 22-10-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The Howes chemical company worked with all UK agencies as required by law.
The US decided to extradite because they wanted the chemicals to stop reaching the US, the US also knew evidence was not required to to have the Howes
couple extradited.
The US also knew that once extradited the Howes would if cleared on conspiracy still get 20 years per count for selling the chemicals to the US.
The US call it "The long arm law" it allows the US to extend it's laws to other countries.
If the Howes are extradited there are more than 50 other people on bail working and directing chemical companies in the UK waiting to see if
extradition is requested.
If you need to know the names of these companies I am happy to post them as I believe SOCA who are working with the US breaching UK laws to serve the
US is Illegal.
thechemicalcloset.com and thechemicalcloset.co.uk was also a US sting using the registered address of KNO3.COM and then they put the sales down to
KNO3 and I have evidence of this.
Will it help the Howes? NO! evidence is not needed or can even be used in defence.
Soon the Howes will be gone and most people will just turn a blind eye.
This however will make it even easier to get any person the US want.
If you people need evidence just ask and links will be given.
|
|
|
psychokinetic
National Hazard
Posts: 558
Registered: 30-8-2009
Location: Nouveau Sheepelande.
Member Is Offline
Mood: Constantly missing equilibrium
|
|
Team America: World Police?
Ugh.
“If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found
the object of his search.
I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor.”
-Tesla
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
Your namesake's ingraciating manner towards Obama is sickeningly reminiscent of his predecessor's to Bush, but Obama isn't Bush and he sees G.B. as he
is; a 3/4s blind Scots idiot with ideas way above his station. . .
And the US, given the chance will extend its influence where it can---it's just how it works!
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
For some actual data, I found the decision of the first judge in the extradition request: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/doc1.html. The press story is from April six months back. What's the current status of the case?
The legal term is
"universal jurisdiction", and it's generally only been used for genocide and war crimes and misbehavior of similar import.
As to issues with the case itself, one question is whether the seller can be considered a "regulated person" under 21 CFR 1300.2(27) (this is in the
diversion regulation). Generally such kind of definition is taken to be a subset of "U.S.A. persons". Since this is a commercial regulation, it's
unlikely that they could make universal jurisdiction stick.
On the other hand, the extradition request is based something other than simply diversion violations, namely, conspiracy; see [18] in the judgement.
|
|
|
Vogelzang
Banned
Posts: 662
Registered: 26-4-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Maybe its revenge for all of the America bashing on the hive.
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
This case is a total clusterfuck on a number of accounts. The US prosecution is taking place in Arizona. Naturally. More data:
2009 Aug 04: Desperate fighting against extradition judgement: Lawyers say woman would be at suicide risk if extradited to US.
2009 Jun 21: WTF? Drugs probe extradition Scot accused of sex attacks on six-year-old girl.
2007 Mar 27: There was already a US civil forfeiture proceeding.
Howes site
And definitive information on this case just isn't very forthcoming. Brian Howes, who publishes/reprints much of this stuff, doesn't seem to right
much himself, so current events are a little hard to make out.
What's become clear to me, though, is that the real culprit is this bastard of a post-9/11 extradition treaty that seriously eliminated a number of
basic procedural protections. However aggressive the Arizona people are (and that's plenty), it was political decisions at the top of the UK
government that made this possible.
|
|
|
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fissile
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Sedit  | Im not pissed.
Sounds like the DEA busted a methlab and these people got ratted out. No way in hell is the US going to go thru all of this without 100% knowledge
that these folks knew they where selling it to someone wanting to cook. Think of an undercover prostitution sting where you don't solicite the money
they wait for the jane to set the terms then they takem down. Until I hear more on the case I can't really say I feel for them one bit. They are a
chemical company and as such I am sure they know the status of RP/I2 in the US. Fireworks and animal medication...? Spare me the sob story really.
They got caught and it happends when you play hard ball. But as such you must face what you know may come from it. |
Have to agree with Sedit. I'm not pissed in the slightest. Red P and I2? Give me a break.
|
|
|
12AX7
Post Harlot
Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline
Mood: informative
|
|
Isn't it SOP to ask the sellers for records or other assistance in where these products are going? I mean, wouldn't it be an awful lot easier and
more productive to monitor their customers than to bust them in the first place?
Tim
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
These chemicals
are legal in the UK. They are not legal to sell without registration in the US. There are plenty of things that are legal in one jurisdiction that are
illegal in another. The whole reason that universal jurisdiction does not generalize (and wasn't meant to) is that otherwise people would be subject
to prosecution from anywhere in the world, for just about anything that someone, somewhere didn't like. This is a kind of foundational civil right
that just didn't need explicit enumerating until recently.
As far as the Arizona prosecutors, they are doing their job, admittedly with an above-average overzeal that has its own kind of noxiousness. But
that's not news. The real people to be offended at are the British and Scots who signed off on this mode of extradition and who are proceeding forward
with this.
I can see only three (sane) ways that someone might not be offended about this. (1) They believe that it's a good idea to restrict phosphorus and
iodine sales. (2) They believe that it's a good idea that people should be subject to laws of another country. (3) They wish to blame the victim, who
should have know better than to taunt powerful people. I have little respect for any of these positions.
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by 12AX7 | | I mean, wouldn't it be an awful lot easier and more productive to monitor their customers than to bust them in the first place?
|
It's not more productive for the prosecutors, who have a career-making incentive to bust "international drug
criminals". There's definitely an incentive mismatch here, leading not only to ineffective interventions, but also to injustice.
|
|
|
Sedit
International Hazard
Posts: 1939
Registered: 23-11-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Manic Expressive
|
|
But watson you said yourself that conspiracy was the crime for which they are being prosecuted for. I have see suggestions that this was not a minor
incedent but they have supplied enough to make TONs of methamphetamine (I know they over do it...but still). Conspiracy to manufacture drugs is a
felony there im sure of as well so if there decision is to send the suspects to the US then who are we to judge. In the end I find it doubtful that
charges stating unlawful distribution of the chemicals will hold up other then in the sence that these where there business partners in cooking tons
of drugs.
[Edited on 18-11-2009 by Sedit]
Knowledge is useless to useless people...
"I see a lot of patterns in our behavior as a nation that parallel a lot of other historical processes. The fall of Rome, the fall of Germany — the
fall of the ruling country, the people who think they can do whatever they want without anybody else's consent. I've seen this story
before."~Maynard James Keenan
|
|
|
JohnWW
International Hazard
Posts: 2849
Registered: 27-7-2004
Location: New Zealand
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The case sounds very similar in principle to that of "UFO hacker" Gary MacKinnon, who a few years ago accessed NASA computers in the U$A from his flat
in London, trying to obtain proof of UFOs, and that NASA knew all about them and was trying to cover them up (e.g. by "Photoshopping" photographs
before release, and threatening employees). He has never actually visited the U$A. MacKinnon claims to have have found such evidence, but that he did
not actually have to "hack" in order to find it; he found that he could access the NASA computers concerned easily because they were not protected by
any password, meaning that any computer internet user could readily access the information. I think he was also seeking evidence that the Office Of
Naval Research (ONR) had developed secret reproduction UFOs in "Area 51" in Nevada using technology retrieved from crashed alien UFOs.
In spite of not actually having done any actual "hacking" (i.e. obtaining unauthorized access by cracking logins and passwords on secure sites or
web-pages) or anything else wrong, some idiot pro$ecutor in the U$A corruptly decided that he would like to enhance his promotion prospects by
charging MacKinnon with all manner of "hacking" and "spying" charges, and demanding that the Briti$h Govt. extradite him to Virginia to face charges
there, and to be in custody there while awaiting trial. However, MacKinnon has remained free on bail in London so far. The case, based upon what
appears to be perjured American evidence and the one-sided Fa$cist extradition treaty that the Briti$h Govt. was so stupidly hoodwinked by the Bu$h
régime into signing with the U$A (using the "war/whore on drugs" and alleged "terrorism" as false excuses as usual, see above posts) has gone
through all the English Court system, to the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords.
It looks as if the only thing that could save MacKinnon from extradition is a further appeal to the European Court Of Human Rights, in which he would
be able to avail himself of international law pertaining to Human Rights, such as the UN Universal Declaration Of Human Rights 1948 and European
Charter Of Human Rights 2000, and also claim that what he did was legal in the UK, that he could not obtain a fair trial in the U$A, that his health
or life might be in danger in custody there, and that he would be in jeopardy of being given an unduly harsh sentence (by European standards). He
would also be able to argue the substantive facts of his case.
Gary McKinnon was caught as the result of his having accessed the NASA computers from his own home (rather than an internet café or library), and not
using an elite/high-anonymity proxy-server such as those listed in http://www.samair.ru/proxy . He also made the mistake of downloading whole websites using a free utility that he downloaded from a website which
requires downloaders to give their names and email addresses (which could be simply falsified), and again without using a proxy-server.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon and http://freegary.org.uk and http://www.theblackvault.com/wiki/index.php/Gary_McKinnon
It looks as if the Howes are facing the same battle, and that their case may also end up in the European Court Of Human Rights, although the laws of
Scotland (where they live) are generally more humane than English laws. They would, like Gary MacKinnon, be able to argue their substantive case
before the European Court, along with the fact that what they did was not an offense in the UK, that they could not obtain a fair trial in the U$A,
that their health or life might be in danger in custody there, and that they would be in jeopardy of being given an unduly harsh sentence by European
standards
It is also unfortunate that the UK does not have some sort of Constitutional provision preventing Briti$h nationals from being extradited to face
alleged charges (which could easily be politically-motivated) in foreign Courts, like many other countries have in order to protect their own
nationals. France and Russia are two countries that have such a Constitutional provision, which is why Lugovoi could not be extradited from Russia to
the UK on a Briti$h charge of murdering Colonel Litvenenko by poisoning him with polonium-210 in London in 2007.
As for I2 and red P, they have several important uses quite unconnected with any sort of either legal or illegal organic synthesis. I2 is used as an
analytical reagent in a titration to determine dissolved oxygen in water (using starch as an indicator, with which it forms an intense blue complex
when in excess), and, dissolved in grain alcohol, as the disinfectant "tincture of iodine". Red P is used to make calcium phosphide (by reaction with
metallic Ca), used to poison burrowing vermin by placing Ca3P2 in their burrows, where the stuff undergoes hydrolysis in the presence of water vapor
to poisonous PH3; and in making matches; and as a small constituent of some alloys.
[Edited on 18-11-09 by JohnWW]
|
|
|
anotheronebitesthedust
Hazard to Others
Posts: 189
Registered: 24-6-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: |
Conspiracy to manufacture drugs is a felony there im sure of as well
|
Do you have any references? In Canada, I've never heard of anyone being charged with conspiracy to distribute or manufacture narcotics. A google
search shows the same. The only conspiracy laws we have are aimed at price-fixing among businesses, and I imagine that conspiring to murder someone
would have to be illegal as well, since murder is obviously universally accepted as a criminal offense. Drugs are not as black and white, many
countries still employ the death penalty for simple possession, whereas other countries have decriminalized drugs altogether.
Every country has different laws and different morals and different views. Personally, I think Sudan should begin extraditing American women for
wearing pants on television and in magazines. Hilary Clinton would get her fair share of lashings.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/23/sudan-women-sentenc...
I don't know about state law, but the U.S. federal criminal charge for possessing red phosphorus is actually "Possession of red phosphorus with intent
to manufacture methamphetamine." That means they still have to prove "intent." From what I've read, it sounds like the Howes are being charged with
conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, which is a lot worse. In reality, they only need to have some sense of surety that a juror of 12 citizens
will convict, or that you will plead guilty under pressure. The U.S. federal system has a 97% conviction rate (of which a large percentage are
probably guilty pleas) and they also have unlimited funding.
Brian Howes just needs to keep fighting the good fight, and keep stressing the fact that 1)what he did is not a criminal offense in his country and
2)his country is a sovereign state and does not need to adhere to the ludicrous laws of a country full of retards. Being quiet is the worse thing he
could do.
[Edited on 18-11-2009 by anotheronebitesthedust]
|
|
|
Jor
National Hazard
Posts: 950
Registered: 21-11-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by watson.fawkes | For some actual data, I found the decision of the first judge in the extradition request: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/doc1.html. The press story is from April six months back. What's the current status of the case?
The legal term is
"universal jurisdiction", and it's generally only been used for genocide and war crimes and misbehavior of similar import.
As to issues with the case itself, one question is whether the seller can be considered a "regulated person" under 21 CFR 1300.2(27) (this is in the
diversion regulation). Generally such kind of definition is taken to be a subset of "U.S.A. persons". Since this is a commercial regulation, it's
unlikely that they could make universal jurisdiction stick.
On the other hand, the extradition request is based something other than simply diversion violations, namely, conspiracy; see [18] in the judgement.
|
From that link, I read at [46]:
E.mails were said to have been sent to the respondents alerting them to the fact that their chemicals were being used to manufacture
methamphetamine. An e.mail warned that it was VERY illegal to sell red phosphorus to the United States without a license. Advice was said to have been
given by e.mail to KNO3 in August 2005 by law enforcement in California advising that its iodine crystals were being used to manufacture
methamphetamine in the United States. Examples were given of United States law enforcement officers following up KNO3 orders to their destination in
the United States and finding methamphetamine labs with the chemicals sent by KNO3 in packages with false descriptions of their contents. A saved
website which gives a recipe for manufacturing methamphetamine from red phosphorus and iodine was found on a KNO3 computer.
If these statings are indeed true, KNO3 has been very irresponsible! If really warnings have been send, KNO3 should have stopped selling at all to the
US, especially RP, wich is known to be a regulated chemical for reasons (meth, direct precursor to phosphorus chlorides, CWC regulated chems).
Still I think it's bullshit that the US can start trials against UK citizens.
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
The threads should probably be merged---to put the whole in context.
Er. . .(Novelty, off and worn)?
|
|
|
GordonBrown
Harmless
Posts: 6
Registered: 22-10-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The Howes said they did receive any warnings from US authorities and no evidence was produced to show otherwise.
The Howes labelled Iodine as "Iodine for medical use" and Red Phosphorus "Red metal for metal works"
The packaging was also UN approved with a return address and all chemicals 50 of them all had a return address a business name VAT number and Labelled
in accordance with UK law.
The Howes only ever took credit card orders and it has been accepted that the business account had about £6,000 in it and that was for running costs
and payroll.
There is no defence for the Howes as once on US soil conspiracy can be dropped and each sale without conspiracy carries 20 years.
The plea bargain rate is 97% not the conviction rate.
only 3% of people go to trial and a small fraction are equited.
The Howes must have know as part of their job that all the chemicals had their misuses and they reported to special branch suspicious orders.
RP and Iodine may = Meth in the US but not in the eyes of people in the UK.
The Us get "universal jurisdiction" as I have been corrected by using conspiracy in the indictment to get dual criminality.
If evidence of conspiracy exists the Howes can be tried in the UK as the offence occurred there if it occurred.
Surely everybody is innocent until proven guilty?
Remand and years of proceedings does not constitute a fair trial and bail is not available fpr none US citizens after fighting extradition. The
concept of innocent has completely gone.
This can happen to anybody.
|
|
|
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fissile
|
|
You forgot the most important reason | Quote: Originally posted by watson.fawkes | | I can see only three (sane) ways that someone might not be offended about this. (1) They believe that it's a good idea to restrict phosphorus and
iodine sales. (2) They believe that it's a good idea that people should be subject to laws of another country. (3) They wish to blame the victim, who
should have know better than to taunt powerful people. I have little respect for any of these positions. |
(4)
They think it's a good thing to cut off supplies to some of the dope cooks: | Quote: Originally posted by Jor | | Advice was said to have been given by e.mail to KNO3 in August 2005 by law enforcement in California advising that its iodine crystals were being used
to manufacture methamphetamine in the United States. Examples were given of United States law enforcement officers following up KNO3 orders to their
destination in the United States and finding methamphetamine labs with the chemicals sent by KNO3 in packages with false descriptions of their
contents. |
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Sedit | | But watson you said yourself that conspiracy was the crime for which they are being prosecuted for. I have see suggestions that this was not a minor
incedent but they have supplied enough to make TONs of methamphetamine (I know they over do it...but still). |
The extradition request was based on conspiracy, because the prosecutors could make the argument that this was an action that had a
US nexus. Only 2 counts of the 82 in the indictment, however, mention conspiracy. The rest are the standard List I restrictions, together with the toss-in use of communication facilities,
none of which survive ordinary jurisdiction concerns.
Conspiracy requires at least two conspirators, whose have planned in advance of action to take some action. Simply selling goods is not conspiracy.
Selling goods with awareness of potential illegal use is not conspiracy, since there's no knowledge of what any particular customer is doing. Selling
goods with allegations of illegal use is not conspiracy (but getting closer), because allegations may be correct or incorrect (and it's considered
acceptable for law enforcement to lie during an investigation). Only after a customer has informed the seller of their plans for illegal use does it
rise to the level of conspiracy.
I am not defending these chemical sales as a societal good. I am defending justice, which has been breached here, as a societal good.
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Jor |
From that link, I read at [46]:
E.mails were said to have been sent to the respondents alerting them to the fact that their chemicals were being used to manufacture
methamphetamine. An e.mail warned that it was VERY illegal to sell red phosphorus to the United States without a license. Advice was said to have been
given by e.mail to KNO3 in August 2005 by law enforcement in California advising that its iodine crystals were being used to manufacture
methamphetamine in the United States. Examples were given of United States law enforcement officers following up KNO3 orders to their destination in
the United States and finding methamphetamine labs with the chemicals sent by KNO3 in packages with false descriptions of their contents. A saved
website which gives a recipe for manufacturing methamphetamine from red phosphorus and iodine was found on a KNO3 computer.
If these statings are indeed true, KNO3 has been very irresponsible! If really warnings have been send, KNO3 should have stopped selling at all to the
US, especially RP, wich is known to be a regulated chemical for reasons (meth, direct precursor to phosphorus chlorides, CWC regulated chems).
|
Whether you judge them irresponsible depends on your opinion of how to regulate and/or influence the drugs
industry. But there's an important distinction here. Allegations made by law enforcement that materials sold by a vendor are being used illegally does
not have any legal status. That word "advice" basically means "do as we say", regardless of the actual illegality of the underlying sale. If that's
conspiracy, then it's a conspiracy between the vendor and the law enforcement agency, because that's where the communication lies.
This issue is one of due process of law. That's the term of art in the US, where it's in the Fourteenth Amendment: "nor shall any State deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". The principle here is universal, though. It says that the state may not take
arbitrary action without following the rules. And arbitrary action is the essence of tyranny. If a law enforcement merely "advises" someone of a fact,
there's no process behind it. There's been no trial of fact before a judge, and the truth of such an allegation must not be assumed simply because a
law enforcement agency says it. In the present case there's no particular reason to believe that law enforcement was lying, but that doesn't alleviate
the burden that, if you want proper notification of facts, it requires judicial approval, since that's the result of the process.
Even notification, though, in the present case, doesn't push the actions into conspiracy. It does push them into a category of knowledgeable sales,
which themselves are illegal under the diversion regulations. But such knowledgeable sales are only illegal within the jurisdiction of the statute,
which in the present case includes the US and does not include the UK. So while the prosecutors were trying to elevate the nature of the sellers into
a new crime, they did not properly succeed. Simple notification, even a proper one, does not create a US nexus for jurisdiction, and the notification
that did take place wasn't even proper enough for that.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
