Dotcom’s open letter to Banks

Written By: - Date published: 7:21 am, May 21st, 2015 - 59 comments
Categories: accountability, john banks, law - Tags: ,

For background this piece by Professor Geddis should be required reading: “If you want people to believe you are honest, then it’s best not to file false donation returns”. In comments Geddis sums up:

The point here is that by signing the donations return in question, Banks was attesting that it was a true reflection of the donations he had received. We know as a matter of fact that it was not. He was then subject to two possible consequences:

(1) If he unwittingly signed a false return, then he could have been convicted and fined  if charged within six months of the return (unless he could prove he did everything he could to avoid the error);

(2) If he knowingly signed a false return, then he could have been convicted and jailed for up to two years.

The former consequence was avoided because the false return was noticed too late. The latter was avoided because there was insufficient evidence to convict.

The determination that the return was false rests on the SkyCity donation and is thus irrespective of any claims made by Dotcom. But most of the media attention has focused on the claims surrounding Dotcom’s donations. As well covered recently, the Crown’s case under (2) just collapsed. But Kim Dotcom clearly still feels personally aggrieved by the issue, and last night he released this:
Open letter to John Banks

I think it is safe to say that Dotcom’s challenge will not be taken up.

 

Edit: alternative link.

59 comments on “Dotcom’s open letter to Banks ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tracey 1
    21 May 2015 at 7:41 am

    I get

    file is missing

  2. Tracey 2
    21 May 2015 at 7:59 am

    it is here

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1505/S00238/open-letter-kim-dotcom-challenges-john-banks.htm

    It is a clever move by Dotcom. Banks is showing his further duplicity with how he has framed the action against him as Dotcom motivated, when Dotcom did not go to the police to start the prosecution.

    That the MSM is letting banks claim he has been vindicated WITHOUT adding the simple paragraphs Geddis wrote above is allowing Banks to deceive the public further

    ” The point here is that by signing the donations return in question, Banks was attesting that it was a true reflection of the donations he had received. We know as a matter of fact that it was not. He was then subject to two possible consequences:

    (1) If he unwittingly signed a false return, then he could have been convicted and fined if charged within six months of the return (unless he could prove he did everything he could to avoid the error);

    (2) If he knowingly signed a false return, then he could have been convicted and jailed for up to two years.

    The former consequence was avoided because the false return was noticed too late. The latter was avoided because there was insufficient evidence to convict.”

    • Sans Cle 2.1
      21 May 2015 at 8:56 am

      Think this was on yesterday’s open mike, but worth reporting. Guyon Espiner gave John “Jihaded” Banks (his self-ascribed victimization!) a good grilling on Radio yesterday. Let him have his spake about AG, then quizzed him about his honesty. John “Jihaded” Banks was angry, irate and showed how dishonest he truly is. Worth a listen. There was a “pause” when he was asked what he now thinks about KDC.
      http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201755071/banks-calls-for-solicitor-general-to-stand-aside

      • Tracey 2.1.1
        21 May 2015 at 9:33 am

        Thanks Sans… Banks, like many of his ilk, actually convince themselves their revised version of history is correct…

        IMO he has convinced himself Dotcom was out to get him at any cost and therefore he is innocent… Geddes makes a mockery of those assertions… but who reads Geddes?

        What is it about ACT MP’s and their disdain for the truth or their need to deceive/defraud? Or even former candidates (Swney). Is this the future Libertarians want for us?

        • Sans Cle 2.1.1.1
          21 May 2015 at 10:03 am

          Was Alex Swney on an Act Party ticket/platform?

          • Tracey 2.1.1.1.1
            21 May 2015 at 10:28 am

            He stood for them in the Tamaki electorate in 1999 (against Clem Simich whose son is now in the triumvirate of Brewer, C Graham and Simich -)

            I actually think many would be fooled by Banks in that interview. He did a good CT job of repeating his main point ad infinitum…

            he did state that the police didn’t have enough evidence to prosecute him. That , as I understand it is a lie, they said it was outside the 6 months stated by the legislation… not quite the same thing.

            • Sans Cle 2.1.1.1.1.1
              21 May 2015 at 11:28 am

              Thx for that info.
              Regarding the interview, I thought Espiner did a good job of letting Banks puff up his peacocky feathers, letting him explain how process was wrong; but Espiner then cut to the chase about what actually happened and Banks floundered and evaded. You may be right though – repeat “I was wronged against” enough times, and the average punter who doesn’t follow proceedings closely takes that message.

              • tracey …
                21 May 2015 at 11:32 am

                I do think (hopefully not wishful thining) that Aucklander s on’t vote him in as Mayor again… can’t speak for Epsom cos they would vote for a pig in lipstick if nats said to.

                • Sans Cle …
                  21 May 2015 at 11:49 am

                  lol re Epsom!
                  IMO it would be good if he stood for mayor. He’s not a trustworthy candidate, so would take away some of the Nasty votes, and perhaps split any attempt by Brewer (or others) to take AC to further extremes.

                • dv …
                  21 May 2015 at 11:51 am

                  I thought Epsom had voted for that pig!!!

      • Tracey 2.1.2
        21 May 2015 at 10:17 am

        I observed Minister Banks behaviour as Minister of Police during the Paul White and CitiBank affair. Suggesting he would initiate an investigation of police conduct prior to White’s death but reneging after White died.

      • David H 2.1.3
        21 May 2015 at 1:09 pm

        I couldn’t listen to all of it. To Banks faux outrage, followed by what sounded like a “your not listening to me” before bursting into tears.

        Banks is a crook and he got out on a technicality.

    • dukeofurl 2.2
      21 May 2015 at 9:55 am

      Banks was so ‘honest’ he wouldnt go in the witness box ( which Dotcom did) instead he hid behind his wifes skirts when she testified.

      The reason why he didnt testify is he asked for the money and got it

      • Tracey 2.2.1
        21 May 2015 at 10:31 am

        The accused is entitled to not testify and make the Prosecution make their case without any negative connotation being put on it. I do agree with him that the appalling conduct by the Prosecuting lawyer/s in withholding information from the Court of Appeal must be investigated. Lawyers, like politicians have an appalling reputation and this action needs to be very publicly condemned and sanctioned. Judges rely very heavily on the ethical conduct of lawyers in making their decisions.

      • James 2.2.2
        21 May 2015 at 10:59 am

        HAHAHAH – And its not like Kim Dotcom has done anything to keep himself out of a witness box for all the charges against him is there.

  3. ianmac 3
    21 May 2015 at 8:28 am

    Perhaps the continued pressure on Banks over the last few years has tilted his judgement and caused him to rewrite history. Or perhaps he is just wired to tell porkies. Will Banks respond to the challenge from Kim? Perhaps an appearance on Campbell Live? Ha.

  4. tinfoilhat 4
    21 May 2015 at 8:31 am

    Would this be Dotcom trying to get back into court on another matter to potentially prolong his stay in NZ ?

    • Anne 4.1
      21 May 2015 at 8:53 am

      No. Read Professor Geddis’ article linked to in the post.

      • tinfoilhat 4.1.1
        21 May 2015 at 9:35 am

        I did Anne.

        Andrew is quiet on that particular point.

        I have no doubt that Banks was at the best very negligent, however I can’t help but wonder whether Dotcom is still trying to prolong his stay in NZ and see if Banks is silly enough to play along and allow Dotcom to go down the defamation route.

        Personally I’d like both of them to disappear into the background and cease interfering/running in politics.

        • dukeofurl 4.1.1.1
          21 May 2015 at 10:01 am

          Wrong ,politics is all the more about big egos, big stakes. We lap it up.

          Would you rather we heard about the small man , with the small mind who was set up to win Epsmon

        • Tracey 4.1.1.2
          21 May 2015 at 10:16 am

          I can’t see how tinfoil. Being involved in civil litigation wouldn’t prevent extradition. How do you see it impacting or stopping extradition?

        • JonL 4.1.1.3
          21 May 2015 at 10:31 am

          “I have no doubt that Banks was at the best very negligent,”

          Having known Banks for many years (not close – who wants to be), JB is never negligent. He knows exactly what is going on!

          • dukeofurl 4.1.1.3.1
            21 May 2015 at 12:05 pm

            And the funny business in the bee pollen affair, the Judge ruled his evidence was a travesty of lies.
            Then there was the Huljich finance company when Banks was an executive director, he signed false statements there too.

            Then we have the donations, where he was charged over the Sky city cheque which he walked out the door with it in his pocket and Dotcom where he asked for the money to be split into two payments. Both lost on technicalities, but the facts had him asking and receiving the money and then saying he didnt know who the money came from.

            This idea of Banks being honest as the day is long is just not backed up

            Its a fabrication spread by Banks who has got away with it on technicalities and using expensive lawyers

    • Tracey 4.2
      21 May 2015 at 9:35 am

      I can’t see how tinfoil. Being involved in civil litigation wouldn’t prevent extradition. I suspect it is Dotcom trying to point out that Banks is duplicitous and a liar and he wouldn’t have bothered if Banks hadn’t made a big sow of how honest he is at the Stanford Plaza.

  5. Stuff the Politicians 5
    21 May 2015 at 9:30 am

    No surprise that many Kiwi people do not trust Politicians and J Banks is just another untrustworthy ex Politician.

    Given time he will get his just deserts.

    • mac1 5.1
      21 May 2015 at 9:41 am

      ‘he will get his just deserts’……………..

      Like Ozymandias? A lesson for us all, but especially our leaders, be they kings, prime ministers or lesser politicians.

      “”My name is OZYMANDIAS, King of Kings.”
      Look on my works ye Mighty, and despair!
      No thing beside remains. Round the decay
      Of that Colossal Wreck, boundless and bare,
      The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

      • Tracey 5.1.1
        21 May 2015 at 10:15 am

        *sigh*

        • mac1 5.1.1.1
          21 May 2015 at 10:52 am

          Tracy, *sigh* does not give me enough information, sorry. My comment is not an attack on a spelling error, nor is it just a chance to make a pun, but is also a serious comment on our personal and political legacies.

          How will history judge the mighty- our cabinet ministers, leaders of political parties, mayors?

          In religious traditions, or course, judgement, the opinion of others, especially the mightier, is a powerful control on behaviour. How will God judge us come Judgement Day?

          Some of our mighty seem to be impervious to such controls. Hence mickysavage’s post on Banks and Dotcom.

          • tracey 5.1.1.1.1
            21 May 2015 at 11:06 am

            ” a serious comment on our personal and political legacies.”

            And that is why I sighed. Cos I understood why you posted it (sans God’s judgment). I sighed because it is sad and true. I sighed because our children and their children will judge us harshly for the world we have delivered them, and no amount of money to a small number of them will make it ok.

            • mac1 5.1.1.1.1.1
              21 May 2015 at 11:43 am

              Thanks, Tracy.

              And some people wonder why others get angry?

              On a personal level, is this why we are political activists- to ameliorate the world we bequeath to our children?

              I listened on nat radio this morning to a hostage negotiator who said that our biggest motivators are feelings, especially fear of loss. In this case, fear of the loss of our children’s respect.

              My biggest fear is loss of my own personal respect- have I done enough to keep that respect considering the world we live in and my part in it.

  6. ianmac 6
    21 May 2015 at 9:35 am

    In the Herald written by Jared Savage but just quoting from Kim’s letter:
    “In an open letter to the former Auckland mayoral candidate, Dotcom warns he will not hesitate to file defamation proceedings if Mr Banks does not retract his statements calling him a liar.”
    “Kim Dotcom has challenged John Banks to a sit-down on the record interview to determine who is telling the truth in the row over filing a false electoral return…..This morning, Mr Banks said he had not seen the letter from Dotcom, but said he would not be responding to the challenge to front up in an open interview….Mr Banks said he would not retract his comments about Dotcom despite the threat of defamation proceedings…
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11452323

  7. Clean_power 7
    21 May 2015 at 9:35 am

    Mr DotCom appears to be fighting his last battles, and could soon be heading for an American jail. A true story of from hero to zero.

    • Tracey 7.1
      21 May 2015 at 9:48 am

      If he can play a part in further exposing Banks as the liar or simpleton he must be then he has achieved something for the folks of NZ.

    • dukeofurl 7.2
      21 May 2015 at 9:58 am

      Dont think its funny , the crown makes a mistake in the prosecution of Banks and hes away laughing.

      The crown has made many many mistakes in Dotcoms prosecution, and each and every time they bat it away as not important.

      • Tracey 7.2.1
        21 May 2015 at 10:14 am

        and each mistake (failure to prosecute within 6 months, and failure to share information) resulted in Banks skipping away…

  8. ianmac 8
    21 May 2015 at 9:40 am

    The process, should it come to a defamation case, would show that Kim gave John ample opportunity to retract his accusations, which must be significant?

    • Tracey 8.1
      21 May 2015 at 9:55 am

      Banks would need to prove his statements about DotCom are
      True
      Opinion, the statement in question was a statement of your genuine opinion on a matter of public interest. Banks, givent he information he had in his possession from the proceedings (which includes all affidavits and testimony) would have to show that it was reasonable and in the public interest to conclude publicly that Dotcom
      said to him

      “if you don’t help me get out of jail I’ll destroy you’.

    • Tracey 8.2
      21 May 2015 at 10:13 am

      Doubly difficult if he didn’t record the conversation because it was NOT DotCom who led the criminal prosecution charge, so inference is going to be difficult to prove as well.

  9. Jones 9
    21 May 2015 at 10:04 am

    If John Jihadi Banks had any clues he would STFU and realise he’s dodged a proverbial bullet here. But I don’t think he can help himself. Good on Dotcom… nice move by him confronting Banks’ shrieking head on. I hope that this results in Banks scampering away… “nothing to fear, nothing to hide”… lol!

  10. Robert Atack 10
    21 May 2015 at 10:29 am

    Banks is just acting like the psychopath he is, psychopaths just can’t admit guilt, he will go to his grave yelling “I’m innocent”
    He can’t help himself, he is genetically programmed to never take responsibility for his actions.
    Hence why he is/was a politician.

    • Anne 10.1
      21 May 2015 at 10:52 am

      Banks is just acting like the psychopath he is, psychopaths just can’t admit guilt, he will go to his grave yelling “I’m innocent”.

      I can’t stress enough how true that quote is. Having had the misfortune to come up against psychopaths/sociopaths in the past (in the Public Service and elsewhere), they program their minds to wipe their unlawful behaviour from their memory – or they convince themselves they were right to act in an illegal manner because their target was the one who is bad. Therefore when challenged, they come across as genuine in their denials of wrong doing, and people believe them. Many thousands of good, law abiding people have had their reputations damaged or even completely ruined by such people.

      I have not one ounce of sympathy for John Archibald Banks.

      • yabby 10.1.1
        21 May 2015 at 11:31 am

        My opinion.

        Mr Bank’s career, that of his wife and the lives of his children have been at best strained by vexatious litigation that looks corrupt to me. Subterfuge and obfuscation were employed by the Crown in collusion with their witnesses.

        The charge against Banks was that he “knowingly” filed a false electoral return and it is now clear that that no such charge could stand, as the Crown failed to reveal information that would exonerate him.

        There is indeed a case to accuse people of psychopathic behaviour as you refer to, but I’d be looking to McCready, the Crown, Dotcom, Dacre and Heron to support your thesis rather than Banks.

        Like him or loath him Banks is acquitted as he should be and those responsible for this travesty should pay with their careers and face criminal proceedings.

        • tracey 10.1.1.1
          21 May 2015 at 11:36 am

          ” The point here is that by signing the donations return in question, Banks was attesting that it was a true reflection of the donations he had received. We know as a matter of fact that it was not. He was then subject to two possible consequences:

          (1) If he unwittingly signed a false return, then he could have been convicted and fined if charged within six months of the return (unless he could prove he did everything he could to avoid the error);

          (2) If he knowingly signed a false return, then he could have been convicted and jailed for up to two years.

          The former consequence was avoided because the false return was noticed too late. The latter was avoided because there was insufficient evidence to convict.” A Geddes

          I am sorry that you cannot see that had Banks read the form he declared he had read and understood, and then made the corrections to make it what he said it was when he signed, he would not be in the position he is in. He is partly responsible for the hell and torture his family has endured.

          Do I feel for his wife and family? Absolutely, but he is a player in his own misfortune and which he exposed his family to. It is fascinating to me that it was his wife who pursued the American Businessman and not Banks from the outset as part of his defence.

          Mr Banks has a history of being intellectually dull or dishonest. This is not his first intellectually dull or dishonest action. That he takes NO responsibility for what his family has gone through speaks volumes about Mr Banks.

        • dukeofurl 10.1.1.2
          21 May 2015 at 2:09 pm

          vexatious ?

          Bank is the one who went to court many times to try and stop the trial going ahead.
          A District Court judge through- out Banks attempt to stop Macreadys private prosecution.
          Banks then went to High Court and lost that attempt.

          Dont forget this evidence.

          “Mr Dotcom and Mr Tempero each give evidence of a telephone
          conversation with Mr Banks during which he confirmed receipt of the
          donations. Mr Banks was aware that donations had been made by or
          on behalf of Mr Dotcom.

          An inference could be drawn that Mr
          Banks had always intended to disclose those donations as having been
          made anonymously
          http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1312/BanksvAucklandDistrictCourt.pdf

      • xanthe 10.1.2
        21 May 2015 at 11:54 am

        Agreed Anne

        I also have experienced that in organisations ….. I am right therefore i am absolved of any obligation to act moraly,truthfully,ethically because i am fighting for what is right therefore……

        having said that the crown is right to throw out a case where the prosecution has acted dishonestly and i hope it becomes the norm

        • Anne 10.1.2.1
          21 May 2015 at 12:27 pm

          Yes xanthe, it would appear that was the case so I’m assuming it was correct to throw out the case.

          But the argument that John Banks is therefore innocent of acting in a dishonest and possibly unlawful way is demonstrably wrong. He requested cheques from benefactors and then instructed them to divide the cheques up into smaller denominations so as to be able to declare them as anonymous. His claims he knew nothing about them – that in effect, it had nothing to do with him – is laughable and anyone who believes him is guilty of extreme naivety.

          • xanthe 10.1.2.1.1
            21 May 2015 at 12:31 pm

            Yes and for banks to then claim this “proves his innocence” is simple dishonesty. But as you point out he quite possibly genuinely dosnt “get” honesty

  11. Tracey 11
    21 May 2015 at 10:32 am

    I am reposting this from above

    The accused is entitled to not testify and make the Prosecution make their case without any negative connotation being put on it. This rightly extends to Mr Banks.

    I do agree with him that the appalling conduct by the Prosecuting lawyer/s in withholding information from the Court of Appeal must be investigated. Lawyers, like politicians have an appalling reputation and this action needs to be very publicly condemned and sanctioned. Judges rely very heavily on the ethical conduct of lawyers in making their decisions.

  12. Heather Grimwood 12
    21 May 2015 at 12:04 pm

    file missing and also withdrawn from yahoo news at least…obviously pulled

  13. Heather Grimwood 13
    21 May 2015 at 12:20 pm

    Apologies…Ed’s alternative still there

  14. NZSage 14
    21 May 2015 at 2:16 pm

    Have a lsiten to this Ted Talk http://www.ted.com/talks/pamela_meyer_how_to_spot_a_liar

    Then have another listen to Bank’s interview on Radio NZ.

    A simple conclusion will be afforded you. 😉

    • ianmac 14.1
      21 May 2015 at 3:42 pm

      Yes NZSage. And add J Key to the list. Watch the smile. Seldom meets the eyes as she says. There is a montage somewhere online where Mr Key poses for dozens of Young Nats. He stays still in the centre as rapidly pairs of young people flit through one on either side of him. Note how the “friendly grin” stays fixed for the 20 or so clips. Wonder why people a cannot pick the falseness of that ready constant grin. (leer?)

    • Sans Cle 14.2
      21 May 2015 at 4:59 pm

      +1 Sage.
      Worth watching (but I may be lying!!)
      The point about anger turning to contempt is interesting – as that was clearly evident in the Banks/Espiner interview.

  15. MrV 15
    22 May 2015 at 2:37 am

    The only Jihad John Banks has been involved with was when he joined the ACT party as a suicide bomber and completely destroyed the place.