Re: Why is it moot?
"The US case would be decided under the law of the US, or whichever state is applicable. The UK case is decided under UK law.
Of course it's not impossible, or even unlikely, for those two bodies of law to say different things and be interpreted by different authorities, and thus lead to different outcomes."
This is exactly why it would be a travesty of justice if Lynch was extradited. I have no idea about the man himself but the point is that he sold a British company, liste don teh London stock exchange, teh sale taking place in England. US laws may be different from UK laws and that difference may even be significant but the applicable law is clearly English law. If when any of us do something in Britaian that annoys a rich american we can be extradited to be tried under american laws whcih we have no awareness of then the british state has abandoned any pretence to protect its citizens or to have an sovereignty at all.
This would be true even if there was some significant evidence against Mike Lynch the civil case as reported so far has been pathetic with HP failing to provide even a plausible case that there was any fraud, let alone proof it to a criminal standard, let alone tie it to Mike Lynch.
Addded to that we have the deeply unsatisfactory conviction of Sushovan Hussain on the basis of fraud committed by A US salesman who received immunity for testifying against him. Given the paucity of evidence of fraud presnted b y HP so far that conviction reinforces the impression that teh US legal system is incapable of providing fair trials paticularily for foreigners.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
