32 2 mins 10 yrs

Corrupt and rotten to the core, the ruling class has claimed another victim.

Christopher Tappin, a retired businessman from Kent, was today put in handcuffs and sent to America, where the State threatens him with 35 years in prison. He was never in the US when his alleged crime took place, he simply never visited, so yet another Briton is, in effect, claimed by a foreign government for something allegedly done here, yet he is not accused of a crime here.

He was put in handcuffs and handed over to foreign custody despite no evidence being presented against him in a court in this country. No witnesses have been named, no witness statements submitted, not one shred of evidence has been laid against him, yet he is detained under violence and handed over. The prosecutor only had to name Mr Tappin and that is enough now in post-justice Britain. Even the walking trash bag who agreed to this rotten scheme says it’s a flawed process.

Mr Tappin will, of course, be found guilty of the alleged crime after being denied bond and the prosecutor makes it up as he goes along. So corrupt is the federal legal system, and so costly is any reasonable attempt to defend yourself, that 98 per cent of defendants plead guilty. So 35 years, or do a deal, get 7 years and be repatriated in three? What would you do when a rotten system will bleed you of hundreds of thousands of dollars and make you serve 35 years if (when) you lose?

If there’s any justice in this world the corrupt filth who inflicted this process on us will serve the last few decades of their rotten lives in a prison too.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

32 thoughts on “THE SCALES OF INJUSTICE

  1. You neglected to say what the ” retired businessman ” was accused of.

    How nice to frame the question while leaving out the fact that he is accused of
    conspiring to sell components for Iranian missiles

    A mere oversight I am sure.

  2. Yes, The Sunday Times covered this. I couldn’t believe what I was reading. Still can’t.

    This extradition treaty stinks to high heaven. I’ve had a word with my MP about it and he’s promised he’ll do all he can. Everyone should do likewise. Only way to stop the rot.

  3. Phantom –

    The accusation (via an FBI sting) is irrelevent, and I purposely did not mention it because it’s irrelevent.

    Not one piece of evidence was presented against him in any court in this country. Unless and until that is done the details are unimportant.

  4. Phantom,

    You commented same time as I did. He didn’t know the batteries were destined for Iran, nor their end-use. As far as he was concerned, he was expediting an innocuous shipment to Amsterdam.

  5. An anonymous shipment on behalf of a federal front company which entrapped him. It’s yet another hostile act by a demented regime which is hostile to our liberties.

  6. If this treaty is as one sided as is claimed, it should be reformed.

    I don’t know the facts here, but even US states don’t always extradite to one another all the time.

    Extradition is a necessary tool, but a treaty between allies should work the same both ways, and it should pass reasonable tests of fairness.

  7. I get the feeling this man was just a fall guy for an FBI operation looking at bigger networks. They know he is innocent, they used him in order to manufacture charges which cannot be challenged in the UK courts due to this extradition treaty. They want him on American soil so they can interrogate him for intelligence gathering purposes and either the charges will eventually be dropped when no longer necessary, or he will be strongly pressured to plead guilty to get back to the UK relatively earlier. This extradition treaty is utterly shameful and if the govt. won’t do it’s duty to discard it, then MPs of all parties should for once recognise their primary allegiance to their constituents and force it’s repeal.

  8. Colm – They can’t interrogate him, he is represented by counsel. If this gentleman is innocent as you say (I don’t know the particulars) surely that would come out in Court?

    Pete – The high plea level in Federal Criminal Prosecution is due to the fact that the overwhelming majoirty of those prosecuted are guilty. God I would hate to live in a country where that was not the case (ie where there was a high or even significant percentage of innocent poeple who are prosecuted).

  9. Mahons –

    “If this gentleman is innocent as you say (I don’t know the particulars) surely that would come out in Court?”

    Not when he pleads guilty to avoid a 35 year stretch.

    “The high plea level in Federal Criminal Prosecution is due to the fact that the overwhelming majoirty of those prosecuted are guilty.”

    Bullshit.

    A very close relative of mine has just gone through exactly what Mr Tappin is experiencing. I’ve been very closely involved in the case. I can assure you the Number One aim of the federal prosecutor, from Day One, was to secure a guilty plea based on the threat of a very long prison sentence and ruinously expensive costs in the event of a not-guilty plea.

    I used to laugh at people who said things like my next sentence. At least my relative had a good lawyer, one of the best, and he managed to do a deal, but if you’re poor and black and at the mercy of that system, you’re fucked.

    Having seen how it works up close, I have no doubt a shocking number of innocent people are banged up in federal prisons.

  10. This extradition treaty is totally outrageous. What sort of country are we living in, when we cannot deport resident non-British extremists who are known to have plotted terrorist activities against our own country, yet at the drop of a hat we ship off suspects to the USA merely on some official’s say-so, without any sort of due process, for allegations that are not even crimes in our own land?
    I thought Franz Kafka’s novel was supposed to be metaphorical….

  11. I know nothing about any of the cases in question, but the number one goal of prosecutors is to win the case.

    There have been many cases of prosecutorial abuses, including the criminal Eliot Spitzer in NY State.

  12. As Pete rightly said above, the details of the case(s) in question is not the issue. Yes, I’m also intrigued as to what this chap Tappin is supposed to have done, and whether he did whatever it is, or not. And I also think there’s probably a lot more to it than the sketchy outline that has been reported. But that is not the issue. This is about how we TREAT an alleged suspect.

  13. What sort of country are we living in, when we cannot deport resident non-British extremists who are known to have plotted terrorist activities against our own country, yet at the drop of a hat we ship off suspects to the USA merely on some official’s say-so, without any sort of due process, for allegations that are not even crimes in our own land?

    Absolutely.

    We should revoke the one-sided extradition treaty with Uncle Sam and do whatever is necessary to enable the deportation of AQ plotters, assuming we cannot convict them here.

  14. Tom Tyler –

    There’s no media/tabloid hogwash about this extradition treaty.

    Christopher Tappin in this case and Gary McKinnon (the autistic UFO hunter fighting extradition to the US) have the same solicitor. I know her because I’ve employed her a couple of times. She’s straight with you, as sharp as tack, a real fighter and dedicated to justice. I’ve spoken to her about this treaty and it is as reported. I also saw her on the news today after Mr Tappin had gone and I could see she’s furious about the injustice.

  15. Pete, I’m not suggesting that there’s a “hogwash”, merely that there’s probably more background than what has been reported. Just my hunch; I know nothing, and cannot know anything beyond what has been reported. -But as you said, the details of these cases are not, essentially, the issue here. It’s the principle behind this extradition treaty that is the issue, and in principle, it bloody stinks, as we agree.
    I also think that you should desist from bringing your personal knowledge of any persons involved into this. (Who knows in what way you could unwittingly harm the ‘suspects’ involved). That you personally know either a solicitor or a suspect is not something we need to know, and even mentioning this might be possibly detrimental to the flow of justice.

  16. Pete – Who said he is pleading guilty? Even a guilty plea when entered is examined by the Court to see if it is boan fide and not made under undue duress.

    And it isn’t bullshit that the overwhelming majority of federal prosecutions are of the guilty. The stats don’t lie. I don’t know what happened in your relative’s case, if the facts are egregious let me know and I’ll see if I can have a federal defense counsel review the case for you on a pro bono basis (no promises but I know a lot of criminal defense counsel). You can e-mail me and I will keep our discussions 100% confidential.

    Tom and the rest – The extradiction treaty has been reviewed by the highest levels of your government. There are procedural safeguards, but if you wish for more then by all means petition your representatives.

  17. Mahons

    We had a perfectly valid extradition treaty with the US before this one came along. It worked to help ensure that if US prosecutors wanted to extradite a British resident they were required to provide some evidence of a genuine case before the accused left the Jurisdiction of our courts. That is generally how extradition treaties always work. Following 9/11 the US pressed for a new treaty which did away with the need to provide any evidence to the UK courts before extradition took place. American courts and legislators have not recipricated and have rightly insisted that no extraditions of Americans can take place without sufficient evidence being examined in US courts first. That is what is so wrong and unfair with the way our govt. has dealt with this issue.

  18. he sold missile parts to the Iranians, give him a fair trial, followed by a fair hanging, what I find disgraceful is that it is not a crime in his own country.

  19. Colm – Last time this issue came up I reviewed the treaty and if I recall correctly determined that the reciprocity is there, and that there are sufficient safeguards for the accused in either jurisdiciton. I’ll review again. Until then, don’t sell any batteries to any Iranians.

  20. One of the safeguards that I recall is that no British national could be extradicted who would face capital punishment.

  21. “He sold missile parts to the Iranians”

    No need for evidence, no need for a trial , no need for a shred of proof, Troll knows the FACTS.

  22. Tom Tyler –

    Sorry, I didn’t mean that you had suggested there’s hogwash about this. Clearly you haven’t. It was just to affirm that the press isn’t hiding any fine print in the treaty to enrage the masses and all that. And you’re right, I’m happy to talk about things in private (as I imply to Phantom in my 8.43pm) but will leave it there on here.

  23. Mahons –

    (Genuinely) thank you, but a deal’s done, it’s been quite tortuous, expensive and … let’s say all parties have settled on an outcome and I don’t think I’d be thanked for upsetting the apple cart.

  24. Mahons –

    “One of the safeguards that I recall is that no British national could be extradicted who would face capital punishment.”

    That’s a European Convention on Human Rights stipulation and it pertains to torture also (hence, Qatada staying here while Jordan is suspected of resorting to torture). In this sense, the UK/US extradition treaty is subordinate to the ECHR even though Chief Justice Troll gave a dissenting opinion.

  25. Pete Moore – excellent responses to the points which I and others have raised.
    OK, so let us dismiss those points as off-topic, and let us return unto the central issue at hand here: This extradition treaty is a bloody downright disgrace.
    ASt this stage, I would like to wish the internet hacking group known as “Anonymous” all the very best of luck in their endeavours, and to ask “how do I join you?” (except that (a) I would be of no use to them, and (b) I guess that they would contact me, rather than I them.)

    I don’t care: I say “Go, Anonymous”. I wish you all the very best in hacking and disrupting the USA’s central governmental computer sites. Go for it! Bring them all down. If the USA is going to exhibit such a complete disregard for the welfare of the individual in these matters, then I’m on the side of “Anonymous”, whoever they are.

  26. Tom

    I’m sure Allan would inform us that ‘Anonymous’ is really just another branch of the FBI 😉

  27. Colm, although I still think that some of Allan @ Aberdeen’s views are slightly odd, I am slowly coming to the viewpoint that not all of Allan’s theories are quite as absurd as they seem. I do not (as yet) subscribe to Allan’s views re 9/11 (just to give one example), but he always expresses himself rationally and carefully. I may not agree with 75% of what Allan says, but I do not dismiss his opinions out of hand.
    -But enough about Allan. I speak for myself. Something is very, very rotten in the state of UK~US treaties. We need no ghost from the grave to tell us this. O cursed sprite, that ever we were born to set it right!

  28. Since the US/UK Extradition Treaty was signed in 2003 the United States (both the Government and their Judicial system) refused an extradition request from the United Kingdom. It is not imbalanced in favour of the United States. In fact the 2003 treaty was signed to correct an imbalance against the United States in the 1870 extradition agreement.

    Historically the US had to provide prima facie evidence for extradition (the ability to show credible evidence that the crime was committed) while the UK only had to provide probable cause. The 2003 Act balanced it by changing to US requirement to reasonable suspicion (effectively the same as probable cause).

    The difference in this case and the cases of Richard O’Dwyer, Gary McKinnon and Babar Ahmad (and also it has to be said Abu Hamza) is that their alleged crimes took place while that person was in the United Kingdom and, while impacting on the United States, did not actually take place physically in the United States. It isn’t a question of whether or not the treaty is unbalanced (because it isn’t). It is a question as to whether the United States have jurisdiction and that is an area that the Treaty and the Extradition Act need tightened up on.

  29. *should read “Since the US/UK Extradition Treaty was signed in 2003 the United States (both the Government and their Judicial system) have never refused an extradition request from the United Kingdom.

Comments are closed.