11.28.07
Nat-West 3
We still keep an eye on the cuz’s progress in Heuston. Looks like some progress at last. Hopefully a quick trial and a sentence in the UK…
PO’Neill comments..
Update: Yup, the plea was entered and sentencing in February. The deal included a 37 month sentence. Time off for good behaviour maybe. The sentence is starting yet the end is now in sight and bitter taste left in everyone’s mouth about the Brits toadying up to the US. btw, has the US ever signed the extradition agreement?
Gerry said,
November 29, 2007 at 1:55 pm
hmmm. interesting interpretation. At odds with the reporting in today’s Guardian. They pleaded guilty, as in they admitted they did it.
An interesting footnote:
The new extradition deal – which covers many countries – was always intended, the Home Office points out, to respond to the increasingly global nature of financial, electronic and terrorist offences. Britain’s previous arrangements had seen extradition requests from overseas take up to 10 years as well-resourced defendants deployed delaying tactics.
Serious Fraud Office boss Robert Wardle, who has reviewed the case extensively, is astonished it has become a cause celebre. “Most of the evidence is in America – the main witnesses are there, as are most of the documents,” he has said. “Even if you think the new arrangements are unfair … in this case, the evidence that was produced [to the British courts] would have been enough to secure extradition even under the old act.”
Sarah said,
November 29, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Well, they copped a plea. Think about the consequences of trying to defend yourself in Heuston on an Enron charge. It would take five years and millions of dollars. The only sensible thing is to find something to plead guilty to and get the hell home as quickly as possible.
If the treaty is so important, how come the Americans haven’t signed up?
Also, the extradition treaty was put through on the terrorism arguments. Imagine the shock when 3 white englishmen are the first victims of the act instead of working class muslims. eeeeuw.
Gerry said,
November 29, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Well they had the chance to defend themselves and they chose not to. I mean let’s face it, they did it. They were named and there appears to be substantial evidence (hence the wire fraud) and they admitted it. They are thieves not ‘victims’.
BTW, it is you that seems outraged that 3 white businessmen are the ‘victims’ of the act and not muslims. The British gov at least proved itself neutral in supporting their extradition. surely it would have been worse to find an exception for these chaps and then wave off any ‘terrorists’
Are they the first, have there been any others? I don’t know as it is not likely to get reported is it?
P O'Neill said,
November 29, 2007 at 3:55 pm
They’re trying to extradite Abu Hamza (the infamous “hook” cleric) under the same procedure now. Decision due soon. Paradoxically, Hamza might have more arguments than the 3 did, since he can credibly argue that he might be dumped in Gitmo or rendered to a 3rd country without any due process once he’s extradited to the US.
The Crewser said,
November 29, 2007 at 7:58 pm
As I predicted the Albert Reynold’s story turned out to be a complete bottle of smoke but The Bad Ambassador still tried to salvalge something from the dying embers of the story. Still it gave a headline for Sarah Carey and a few other Blogs who are well disposed to this sortof thing and then skip away without a hint of regret when it all turns out to be nothing. There will always be The Bad Ambassador and his ilk who will turn up every once in a while with some nasty, vexatious comment and then he will skulk off into the undergrowth until another opportunity arises for spleen venting.
Sarah said,
November 29, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Actually, they would have been significantly better off if they had pleaded guilty to something much earlier on when they could’ve testified against Andrew Fastow and gotten leniency. By defending themselves for so long, they ended up being surplus to requirements. But after all that fuss, they’ll have to serve some kind of a sentence to justify the extradition.
P O'Neill said,
November 29, 2007 at 8:25 pm
I think the problem is that Fastow caved much sooner than anyone expected. He seems to have had some actual (gasp) remorse about his role in the Enron collapse. Plus his wife was implicated so he needed to cut a deal pronto.
V said,
November 30, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Begging your pardon code monkeys but who the f**k is the ‘Bad Ambassador’?
V said,
November 30, 2007 at 4:43 pm
OK so he is a blogger. Never mind mobile phones, what did we do before Google?