One, I have no opinion on British law...from the house of lords decision I read, it seemed reasonable that Gary was treated fairly.
I have countered your opinions, with facts.
Gary put himself in the situation he faces.
I said that you have been sold on the hype because you quoted it.
Hackers generally plead out or face a longer sentence.
He admitted his guilt.
The ufo defense is laughable in the real world.
No "real" attorney would recommend something so stupid.
Yes the US military has evidence.
Yes, I misspoke, Gary is innocent until proven guilty.
He just has admitted to the hacking but not the damage.
I have not seen the evidence, but I have read about it.
Seems convincing to me
US military secrets are not hooked up to the internet...in my opinion.
In my opinion, Gary saw nothing
The $5000 number per unit means little to me until the evidence is presented, but that is the rumored amount.
I have no opinion on the UK extradition law...the house of lords seems okay with it though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGhost
"Is everyone out to get Gary?" - no, the US military/Shadow Government is out to get him and they are exerting pressure on others so that they can get their hands on him.
Asking the question "Is everyone out to get Gary?" suggests you think my arguments mean there must be a vast conspiracy involving thousands of people, or something. Obviously this is not the case.
You appear to be resorting to the arguemnet that if I believe he is being treated unfairly or even illegally it must be because I think it is being done by a vast network of people and it is unthinkable that a vast network of people could/would be out to get him and so I must be wrong. This is a very poor argument.
You seem to think that he should/deserves to be in this situation.
1) the alleged crimes occurred on British soil and so if any charges are brought it should be under British law in a British court,
2) the Extradition Act 2003 is essentially a treasonous document - selling out the rights of British citizens in favour of a foreign government.
He should not be faced with extradition to and trial in a foreign country, whatsoever.
"You my friend, have been sold on the hype." - I've been sold on the hype?!? You do not (or cannot) give me any counter arguments to the points I have made and so you resort to ridiculous statements like that.
"if he is actually foolish enough to go to trial" - it's foolish to defend oneself, is it?? Wow, that is a very big statement. I wonder what kind of justice would be served if you created the laws of the land!
"The evil PtB defense? The Danny B defense?" - there is a provision in law that says, essentially, that if the authorities have gone to excessive lengths (disproportionate to the alleged offence) to pursue the alleged criminal then the jury can find the defendant not guilty even if they think he did commit the crime. It is a way of telling the authorities that the jury thinks their money can be better spent (catching real criminals)! So, to some extent, yes, the "evil PtB" defence could be employed.
Because the authorities have pursued Gary so long and arduously the jury may very well be interested in the content of what he found as it is undoubtedly the reason why the authorities want him so badly. If Gary had hacked into a toy store's database of merchandise no-one would ever have heard his name. It could therefore be a factor in his defence.
When the jury hear about what he found, possibly corroborated by Dan Burisch/Marcia McDowell, it may persuade them to find him not guilty as a way of sending a message to the "evil PtB" that they want the UFO/free-energy information released to the public.
"paper trail of repair receipts" - are you serious?? Seriously, are you serious??
"where is the evidence that supports Gary innocence?" - defendants are not required to prove their innocence. What country/legal system are you in??
"Even if he really saw what he says he saw, and he had evidence, this would only be evidence of his guilt." - it would be evidence that he is telling the truth about hacking into the systems and finding some very interesting information about off-planet activity (which is something he has already admitted). It would NOT be evidence of causing precisely $5,000 worth of damage per computer (which is what he is being charged with).
"I still maintain that this info Gary claims to have seen, has never been on open servers." - why do you asert this? Who are you? Were they 'open' servers, if it is necessary to hack into them?
Murnut, are you really unable to figure out on your own that the charges against him are trumped up? $5,000 worth of damage per computer - the minimum necessary to bring charges. Not $6,500 here, $7,000 there; no, $5,000 each. Think about it.
I'll ask you once again (with regard to his extradition hearing): how does one defend themselves when the prosecution is not required to provide any evidence?
|