Kim Dotcom to be extradited?

Written By: - Date published: 3:57 pm, December 23rd, 2015 - 184 comments
Categories: Globalisation, us politics - Tags:

Judge Nevin Dawson has ruled that the extradition of Kim Dotcom and his coaccused can proceed.

From the Herald:

Judge Nevin Dawson said there was an “overwhelming” amount of evidence that all four defendants should be surrendered to the US.

Batato’s wife began crying as soon as the decision was released, as did other supporters of the defendants.

Judge Dawson said the men had 15 days within which they could appeal the ruling or make a habeus corpus application.

Crown prosecutor Christine Gordon did not oppose bail for all the men but said the “change of circumstances” should see the conditions of bail reviewed.

She said the men should now be ordered to report to probation every day.
Judge Dawson said he was satisfied the men could be given bail.

Dotcom’s lawyer Ron Mansfield confirmed there would be an appeal lodged over the extradition this afternoon.

If the appeals do not succeed the matter will eventually be considered by the Minister of Justice.

184 comments on “Kim Dotcom to be extradited? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Whispering Kate 1
    23 December 2015 at 4:09 pm

    Poor bastard that’s what I say, for him and his co-accused, whatever you think of the man, to have that decision made for you right on Christmas is awful. To be extradited to the States, well he may as well be handed over to barbarians. The Minister of Justice will have no charity in her heart so its a poor outlook for Mr Kim Dot Com. He brought a bit of fun into the news and I loved it when he told NZ journalists at the Town Hall to literally get off your bums and do your job, at least the man could see corruption and tell it how it was.

    • Kev 1.1
      23 December 2015 at 4:16 pm

      So you think the judge is wrong then?

      • Tiger Mountain 1.1.1
        23 December 2015 at 4:33 pm

        it seems a political more than a legal judgement to me, having followed the case

        the Nats immigration minister over ruled the security reservations on Dotcom and granted him entry, since he has seen Banksie evicted from parliament, the Prime Minister had to publicly apologise to him for illegal spying, Acts pertaining to the GCSB and NZSIS have been changed and Mr Key was shown to be a liar on XKeyscore mass data collection by Edward Snowden, so it would be a brave judge that would rub the Nats and the yanks nose in it again…

      • Paul 1.1.2
        23 December 2015 at 4:36 pm

        This is a political action.
        Our government is beholden to large US corporate interests.

      • Whispering Kate 1.1.3
        23 December 2015 at 4:47 pm

        Kev, there isn’t a judge in the country who would have the courage to give a verdict other than what was handed down. Get in the real world please, we have a nasty under belly in this country and judges are like anybody else , no matter how ethical they are there are decisions that have to be made – of course the whole situation is political, if you can’t see that then your antennae isn’t tuned properly.

        • Kev 1.1.3.1
          23 December 2015 at 4:57 pm

          The judge said there was overwhelming evidence that the accused should be extradited. Even if the US had a gun in the judges back, as you (ridiculously) are trying to suggest, there was no need for him to use the word “overwhelming”. Maybe you need to get in the real world.

          • Whispering Kate 1.1.3.1.1
            23 December 2015 at 5:25 pm

            Who said the US had a gun in his back??

            • Kev 1.1.3.1.1.1
              23 December 2015 at 5:52 pm

              *Sigh* It’s a metaphor for what you’re saying.

              But anyway let’s say the judge decided the extradition shouldn’t go ahead. What do you think would have happened to the judge? Removed from the bench? Visited by the men in black? Shot by the CIA? What?

          • maui 1.1.3.1.2
            23 December 2015 at 7:30 pm

            The judge said there was overwhelming evidence that the accused should be extradited.

            You just repeated what the judge said without saying why the evidence is overwhelming. US copyright expert Lessig says evidence is extremely underwhelming. Do you want to explain why Lessig is wrong perhaps?
            http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11514142

            • George Hendry 1.1.3.1.2.1
              23 December 2015 at 8:09 pm

              From the time of the spectacular overkill paratroop raid there has been overwhelming evidence of how badly Disney & co want to get him and how desperate our PM is to accommodate them.

              If the judge failed to give such a ruthless entity what it wanted, the least he could have expected was to lose his job. (No, not immediately, microcephalous idiot trolls, but a bit later, just before Christmas one year when we happened to be looking the other way.)

              And find it strangely hard to get another, and perhaps be smeared with Hairoil as well.

              And if inadvertently killed by drone, we have at least the assurance of knowing the Court Jester would be comfortable with it.

              • Don't worry. Be happy …
                24 December 2015 at 8:44 am

                In the back of any Judge’s mind is the treatment of Justice Mahan (sp?)…..he of the “orchestrated litany of lies” fame.

          • George Hendry 1.1.3.1.3
            23 December 2015 at 8:17 pm

            Actually, Kev, there was every need to use the word ‘overwhelming’.

            Even (especially) if it actually wasn’t, some would assume it was, a trap into which you seem to have fallen nicely.

            “When you haven’t a leg to stand on, throw tons of evidence at it. It can be irrelevant as, but some is likely to stick.”

            – John Combination

        • weka 1.1.3.2
          23 December 2015 at 8:05 pm

          Kev, there isn’t a judge in the country who would have the courage to give a verdict other than what was handed down. Get in the real world please, we have a nasty under belly in this country and judges are like anybody else , no matter how ethical they are there are decisions that have to be made – of course the whole situation is political, if you can’t see that then your antennae isn’t tuned properly.

          I assume you mean that no judge would rule in favour of KDC irrespective of the evidence? I have to disagree. I’m sure we have judges in NZ that are corrupt/corruptible, but I don’t believe the whole judiciary is by any means. What pressure or incentive is there to rule against the evidence? (not saying I agree with today’s decision btw).

          • George Hendry 1.1.3.2.1
            23 December 2015 at 8:27 pm

            ‘ What pressure or incentive is there to rule against the evidence? ‘

            Hi Weka 🙂

            Is the above a serious question?

            • weka 1.1.3.2.1.1
              23 December 2015 at 8:40 pm

              Yes, but in context (that the pressure applies to all NZ judges). Please be specific in your answer.

              • George Hendry …
                23 December 2015 at 9:30 pm

                Will try… 🙂

                Firstly, this is not meant in any way as a personal comment on this or any judge, but on the significance of this case, the significance of the parties involved, and the political significance of what they stand for.

                In the video clip referenced elsewhere in this thread, Kim states that since this case there hasn’t been another like it. If he’s right and this process has been so rare, I would expect a judge to find making a ruling somewhat more daunting than usual. Fortunately we have an appeal process that will take some of the initial weight of sole responsibility, which I imagine would be rather onerous, from Justice Dawson.

                Having realised what I’d call his initial mistakes (‘lost some early wickets”) Kim has dug in and defended well, even with much personal pressure, public vilification and compromised access to his resources. The tenacity with which the US government (or some corporate with commensurate clout) has stayed on his case could hardly be clearer to any judge put in the position of having to decide whether or not to give such a forceful, well-resourced entity what it clearly wants so badly.

                Is that enough incentive to rule against the evidence? Well, the evidence won’t mind that he did – not sure we could say the same of the corporate if he hadn’t.

                • weka …
                  23 December 2015 at 10:50 pm

                  I don’t think that answers the question and I note that you are talking about an individual judge. I’d like to see the reasoning behind Kate’s idea (as I took it) that all judges in NZ would be inevitably susceptible to abandoning jurisprudence and ruling in favour of the US due to presumably political pressure. Or do you mean the CIA will come knocking on the door in the middle of the night? Or the judge gets offered a nice job overseas? etc.

                  I just don’t see it.

                  “I would expect a judge to find making a ruling somewhat more daunting than usual.”

                  Sure, but that’s not what Kate was referring to. It’s not the difficulty of the case, it’s the idea that NZ judges are all corruptible.

                  • George Hendry …
                    24 December 2015 at 8:03 am

                    Weka – have you read ‘Dirty Politics”?

                    • Whispering Kate …
                      24 December 2015 at 8:49 am

                      Kev, I certainly was not presuming all judges were crooks – far from it, Justice Dawson had a terrible decision to make which he shouldn’t have been put in the position in the first place. USA sources say there is underwhelming evidence – its been a vendetta right from the start with the USA gunning for Kim – other commentators have said he could lose his position but during the silly season some time of course when nobody supposedly is noticing things. I may be uninformed of such matters but if there is a union of sorts for judges I would be banding up and refusing to deal with the matter. The government brought it all on themselves- let them do their own dirty work.

                      Meanwhile “no name” is in the sun in Hawaii or wherever leaving others to take on the responsibility.

                    • weka …
                      24 December 2015 at 10:50 am

                      Weka – have you read ‘Dirty Politics”?

                      Not cover to cover, but I have a copy that I use as a reference and I read a lot of it and other people writing about it when it was released. I know what dirty politics is (feel free to search ts by my name for around the time the book was released)

                      Is there some reason you can’t answer my question? Or are you implying that the whole judiciary in NZ is being subject to dirty politics and is succumbing?

                    • weka …
                      24 December 2015 at 10:57 am

                      Thanks for clarifying Kate, but I’m still confused by what you meant here,

                      Kev, there isn’t a judge in the country who would have the courage to give a verdict other than what was handed down. Get in the real world please, we have a nasty under belly in this country and judges are like anybody else , no matter how ethical they are there are decisions that have to be made – of course the whole situation is political, if you can’t see that then your antennae isn’t tuned properly.

                      Because in that you DO seem to be implying that all judges in NZ would find in favour of the US and/or National rather than following the law.

                      I haven’t read the judgement or general NZ commentary yet, so I don’t have an opinion yet on whether it’s fair or not. But I can’t see any evidence that all NZ judges are able to be pressured in the way you are suggesting. In fact I think we have some judges that patently wouldn’t do that and you do them a severe disservice to call them corruptible. It’s also doesn’t serve NZ or justice.

                  • George Hendry …
                    24 December 2015 at 2:40 pm

                    Hi Weka 🙂

                    I’m replying here as on my screen your latest reply seems not to have a reply button attached.

                    I have, in point of fact, answered your question. My answer is there, in the thread above. Whether I have answered it to your satisfaction is for you to decide. A fine distinction, but worth making in these circumstances where legal wording is so precise.

                    Now for some suppositions/personal opinions.

                    Are all NZ judges corrupt? Highly unlikely.

                    Might some be corruptible? More likely.

                    Are all corruptible? Less likely.

                    Would judges in most of their work feel pressured to give a partisan verdict, rather than follow jurisprudence/judge impartially? Not very likely.

                    Would a judge feel pressured ‘to interpret evidence in a partisan way’ when ruling in a case where one of the parties was the government of our most internationally aggressive ally? I think so.

                    Would a judge find in favour of the US government against all the evidence?

                    That situation is unlikely to arise, as evidence is so open to interpretation.

                    Can politics be kept out of justice ?

                    One day maybe, but certainly not yet.

                    [lprent: Comments will nest to 10 deep, and then they will lose the Reply button. That is because the width of the nested comments gets too small. Just reply to the parent comment up that does have a Reply. ]

                    • weka …
                      24 December 2015 at 3:55 pm

                      most of that has nothing to do with my question. But glad to hear you don’t think all judges in NZ would have caved to US pressure to return the verdict. It does leave me perplexed as to why you’ve been replying to me though. I’m guessing you didn’t read my comments properly.

        • schwen 1.1.3.3
          25 December 2015 at 9:17 am

          You do realise that if the judge had given a decision in favour of Dotcom, despite the overwhelming evidence in support of the extradition, it would be the plaintiff who would now be filing the appeal? And then what? Another judge needs to disregard the evidence in favour of Dotcom?

          The evidence is the evidence, and no honest judge is going to disregard that for the sake of “political courage”.

    • Leftie 1.2
      23 December 2015 at 6:22 pm

      @kate. NZ Herald were particularly vile and nasty yesterday when they published “Merry Christmas Kim Dotcom you could be in jail on December 25”

  2. mary_a 2
    23 December 2015 at 4:48 pm

    Like him or not, I suspect Kim Dotcom was set up from the moment he was granted residency in NZ.

    The movie industry in the US wanted him, so FJK jumped at the chance to comply with his US masters on request, by granting KDC and his family residency here. Easy game for the giant US corporates, who knew the ever servile FJK was the man who would hand him over!

    The Justice Minister Amy Adams, will go along with FJK’s wishes no doubt and have KDC et al, sent to the US to face trial.

    If Dotcom and his co accused are extradited, then no doubt FJK’s toadying to Hollywood, via the FBI and the NZ police force, will work out to have been a lucrative deal for him!

    This tells me any NZ citizen or resident is vulnerable to being sold out by FJK, if he stands to gain from the deal!

    • Colonial Viper 2.1
      23 December 2015 at 9:29 pm

      This tells me any NZ citizen or resident is vulnerable to being sold out by FJK, if he stands to gain from the deal!

      We already knew that from the way FJK supported the Hollywood LOTR/Jackson screwing of NZ actors and movie industry workers.

      • Hami Shearlie 2.1.1
        24 December 2015 at 9:09 am

        Strange isn’t it, there are so so many US companies doing exactly the same thing as Kim Dot Com did with their websites, but he seems to be the only one with a bullseye on his back right now – why are they only gunning for the german guy? The smell around all this is overpowering!

        • Kev 2.1.1.1
          24 December 2015 at 9:29 am

          Um, because megaupload was by far the biggest fish and at it’s peak counted for something like 4% of internet traffic? As for other companies doing exactly the same thing please name a few of them and make sure they are ones people have heard of.

          • whatisis 2.1.1.1.1
            26 December 2015 at 1:08 pm

            Rapidshare was by far the biggest at the time of megauploads shutdown as far as I could tell.

  3. Stuart Munro 3
    23 December 2015 at 4:49 pm

    It’s a civil case. All the US bullshit about money laundering only applies to criminal stuff like drug proceeds – else every US corporation in creation would be done for shifting profits to avoid tax. Civil cases are also not eligible for extradition – but John Key has perverted our legal process so as to crawl even further up the bottom of the US.

    Dotcom is just another victim of the Keytatorship but critically his business was destroyed by Key’s interference. A cyberlocker sector would have been a healthy addition to the NZ economy so of course Key destroyed it – whatever evil he has planned relies on NZ being completely economically fucked.

    • marty mars 3.1
      23 December 2015 at 5:05 pm

      + 1 Good points Stuart.

      I feel very sorry for these people – only harshness awaits them over there.

    • weka 3.2
      23 December 2015 at 8:09 pm

      Pretty interesting there Stuart. I was listening to the RNZ news earlier and wondering how this ended up being a racketeering charge. US law is pretty weird though, isn’t it?

      • Stuart Munro 3.2.2
        23 December 2015 at 11:13 pm

        Yeah – they have criminalised the international movement of money without government stamping. This is both good and bad – it has been necessary for the US to have something of the kind to fight drug cartels, the Red Guys and so forth. But US agencies self-fund to a remarkable degree through this system and so in some cases it has become corrupt – notably the Iran Contras self-funding arrangement. (We might describe the cabinet club as a similarly corrupt practice).

        As Dotcom is not a racketeer, and his business model is not very different from many cyber lockers including youtube, so long as he can fund his defence he ought to win – but the feds play dirty, and in this instance the shitty end of the stick was John Key, who by abusing the sovereign powers of our state was able to intrude the resources of our spy agencies into a very flimsy copyright case. That’s not what those powers are for, and Key is due some time in the naughty corner for that at the very least.

    • Leftie 3.3
      24 December 2015 at 5:08 am

      @Stuart Munro

      Exactly, it is a civil case, so why is the crown representing America, which has no jurisdiction in this country, against a New Zealand resident, that is costing the New Zealand tax payer millions of dollars?

      It appears the crown has unlimited resources to fund America’s legal costs, while National continue to rack up unprecedented govt debt, sink New Zealanders deeper into poverty, and flog off our assets, land and homes to speculators.

      Why aren’t the Americans funding their own representation and legal costs themselves? Why does the NZ taxpayer have to foot that bill?

    • Kev 3.4
      24 December 2015 at 9:34 am

      As explained in the judge’s decision it’s a criminal case because it involves fraud and criminal breach of copyright. The judge explains very clearly why it’s criminal copyright in the decision about 3/4 or so through.

      • Leftie 3.4.1
        24 December 2015 at 11:35 am

        @Kev

        The case against Dotcom is civil, there have been numerous references to that.

        • Kev 3.4.1.1
          24 December 2015 at 12:48 pm

          Read or at least go over the judge’s decision. The case against Dotcom is criminal and it’s very clearly laid out in the judge’s decision.

          • Leftie 3.4.1.1.1
            24 December 2015 at 7:27 pm

            @Kev

            Judges have been known to be wrong, and are not above political bias and interference, as this one clearly is, and there are those equally versed in law who do not hold the same opinion. Like I said, there are numerous references that the case against Dotcom is a civil one.

  4. RedBaronCV 4
    23 December 2015 at 4:56 pm

    I haven’t read the lot yet but there seemed to be a lot of use of the word “infer” .
    I rather though that the proof was on the balance of probabilities at least or even beyond reasonable doubt maybe. But this is the District Court so it’s been kicked upstairs.
    At the very least it gives a period of time for the technicalities to be kicked around by those with more tech experience.
    I noticed that the Judge criticised KDC for not taking data down promptly. Megaupload removed the linking URL but apparently didn’t delete the content from server.
    I’d have thought the actual server deletion might be a bit problematic- after all one could upload as a back up one’s collection of songs brought legitimately from say the itunes store – the issue of a linking URL so others could not download is where the problems start. Be interested in those extra techie thoughts.

  5. upnorth 5
    23 December 2015 at 5:01 pm

    too much evidence is the problem.

  6. Tory 6
    23 December 2015 at 5:06 pm

    Dot Com shat in his own nest, add to the summary of facts his bullshit email at his Auckland Town Hall ‘moment of truth’.

    • Stuart Munro 6.1
      23 December 2015 at 5:14 pm

      No, he relied on our legal system working.

      Tyrants always play merry hell with the law – even the Gnat child molestors get a free pass under Key. Dotcom is just like Hubbard – a wealthy victim for Key’s criminal associates to plunder.

      • acrophobic 6.1.1
        23 December 2015 at 7:14 pm

        Our legal system did work. Good riddance.

        • Stuart Munro 6.1.1.1
          23 December 2015 at 7:22 pm

          Pfff … our legal system won’t even let us name the Gnat sex criminals.

          Dotcom broke no NZ laws – or Hong Kong ones – US law is not his problem. Legally.

          • acrophobic 6.1.1.1.1
            23 December 2015 at 9:28 pm

            “…our legal system won’t even let us name the Gnat sex criminals.”

            That is called ‘name suppression’. It is our legal system at work.

            “Dotcom broke no NZ laws – or Hong Kong ones –”

            Actually Kim has criminal convictions in Germany and Hong Kong.

            “US law is not his problem. Legally.”

            Well it certainly is now! Ever hear of extradition laws Stuart?

            • Stuart Munro 6.1.1.1.1.1
              23 December 2015 at 11:16 pm

              That is called ‘selective name suppression’ and is a graphic instance of the corruption of the judiciary under the Key junta.

            • Stuart Munro 6.1.1.1.1.2
              23 December 2015 at 11:22 pm

              Extradition is a criminal, not a civil process.

              If Key manipulates the law to retrospectively make it a civil process for Dotcom he is interfering in judicial matters.

              Yes, we are aware of Dotcom’s grey hat convictions in Germany – as was Immigration when it allowed him into NZ. If they were ok then, then they are ok now.

              Yes it is a problem for Dotcom now – because we have a corrupt government with no respect for the rule of law.

              • acrophobic …
                24 December 2015 at 11:12 am

                “If Key manipulates the law to retrospectively make it a civil process for Dotcom he is interfering in judicial matters.”

                “If”? Do you have any proof of this actually occuring?

                “If they were ok then, then they are ok now.”

                Irrelevant. I was responding to your comment about KDC having broken no laws.

                “…because we have a corrupt government with no respect for the rule of law.”

                The rule of law is a live and well and has caught up with Mr Dotcom.

              • acrophobic …
                24 December 2015 at 11:26 am

                “Extradition is a criminal, not a civil process.”

                “The FBI warrant is seeking the four men on a range of charges relating to the Megaupload business, from criminal copyright violation through to money laundering and operating an organised criminal conspiracy.”
                http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11565539

          • acrophobic 6.1.1.1.2
            23 December 2015 at 9:33 pm

            “Pfff … our legal system won’t even let us name the Gnat sex criminals.”

            Name suppression is a part of our legal system, and has been for decades.

            “Dotcom broke no NZ laws – or Hong Kong ones – ”

            Dotcom has criminal convictions in both Germany and Hong Kong. He is not on trial for breaching any NZ laws.

            “US law is not his problem. Legally.”

            Well it seems you are wrong, baed on the ruling today.

            • Stuart Munro 6.1.1.1.2.1
              23 December 2015 at 11:26 pm

              I know it’s a lot to ask of you ignorant Tory trolls, but if you want to debate this matter you really must inform yourself of the issues sufficiently that you can discuss them.

              The matter is far from settled, and the judge was not too concerned about that as he knew it would go straight to appeal in any case. It was a little above the pay grade of a district court judge.

      • Ffloyd 6.1.2
        23 December 2015 at 7:48 pm

        @stuart munro.

        Bloody oath! We are on a hiding to nothing under this regime that has been inflicted upon us. Money and power talks. Maybe it is time for the people to talk.

  7. repateet 7
    23 December 2015 at 5:12 pm

    Considered by the Minister of Justice? That consideration won’t take more than a second. A very decisive, on-to-it woman she is.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1403/S00114/special-investigation-adams-family-values.htm

    http://www.openureyes.org.nz/blog/?q=node/5129

  8. Murray Simmonds 8
    23 December 2015 at 5:26 pm

    Now here’s an idea:

    Get someone in Syria, or Iraq (or wherever it is that we have military personnel at present), to apply to have John Key extradited there. Doesn’t matter that Key has never been resident there,n or a citizen of that country, in the same way that Kim DotCom has never been a USA resident or citizen.

    The charges could be something like “conspiring to overthrow the legitimate government” (or the ‘status quo’ or whatever else) of the country concerned.

    Sounds more serious to me than the mere breach of some corporate copyright scam.

    Now that’s what I’d call a DECENT Christmas present.

    • Liberal Realist 8.1
      25 December 2015 at 10:57 am

      “Get someone in Syria, or Iraq (or wherever it is that we have military personnel at present), to apply to have John Key extradited there. Doesn’t matter that Key has never been resident there,n or a citizen of that country, in the same way that Kim DotCom has never been a USA resident or citizen.”

      +1

      But not before FJK stands trial in NZ for high treason.

  9. Lanthanide 9
    23 December 2015 at 5:29 pm

    It’s going to be appealed to the Supreme Court no matter what. So probably another 2-3 years before anything happens, assuming KDC can actually pay the legal fees.

    • risildowgtn 9.1
      23 December 2015 at 7:52 pm

      He can now!….

      Dotcom’s expat Kiwi lawyer, Hong Kong senior counsel Gerard McCoy has unlocked the way to a $50 million pool of Dotcom’s cash, restrained when he was first arrested, and won access to the money for living expenses and legal fees.

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11565404

    • weka 9.2
      23 December 2015 at 8:13 pm

      Thanks Lanth, I was wondering about that and how much they will be hoping for a change of govt in that time.

      • acrophobic 9.2.1
        23 December 2015 at 9:31 pm

        So you’re suggesting that a Labour/Greens/NZF/Mana government would interfere in the proper judicial process?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 9.2.1.1
          23 December 2015 at 9:52 pm

          The judiciary recommends. It’s a ministerial decision..

          • weka 9.2.1.1.1
            23 December 2015 at 10:45 pm

            Indeed. As it says in the post acrophobic. I would expect a Labour/GP/NZF government Minister to be less swayed by the US and commercial concerns than our current one.

          • acrophobic 9.2.1.1.2
            24 December 2015 at 11:17 am

            Yes but can you remember a time when the Minister overruled a recommendation? Doesn’t happen often. Dotcom made the same mistake, thinking that by putting his million into the Internet Party and then his failed Moment of Truth that he would en up owning the Minister. Fail, fail, fail.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 9.2.1.1.2.1
              24 December 2015 at 11:38 am

              I have this weird sense of deja vue reading these comments. Like I’ve heard them before from almost every other wingnut. It’s like some sort of knuckle-dragging Borg.

              Acrophobic, you (and your fine legal mind) were feebly wittering about Ministerial “interference” in the extradition process (deja vue there too). So I pointed out that due process is not interference, and so you went off on another plagiarised rant.

              Are you capable of bringing a single original idea to this discussion? Or does Polly wanna cracker?

              • acrophobic …
                24 December 2015 at 3:35 pm

                To accuse someone of plagiarising, you would, I assume, have access to what I have plagiarised. Yes? No? Maybe. I thought not.

                Now answer my question.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  24 December 2015 at 3:40 pm

                  Yes: your opinions – none of them are original, they simply (and ineffectually) re-hash existing right wing drivel.

                  Show some personal responsibility and answer your own question, or are you Google-challenged as well as unoriginal?

  10. Anne 10
    23 December 2015 at 5:41 pm

    The decision was never going to be anything else. Not because he’s guilty… guilt doesn’t come into it. And Amy Adams will be champing at the bit to fall in behind the FBI play book. I’m looking forward to David Parker’s take on this decision. He has infinitely more intellectual clout than the mediocre Adams.

    Dotcom’s lawyer has described the verdict as a “cut and paste” job from the previous court case. No wonder it was such a short period of time between the end of the case and the judge’s decision. He didn’t even properly evaluate all the evidence. He knew his place… and that was to come down in favour of extradition.

    • tinfoilhat 10.1
      23 December 2015 at 6:36 pm

      🙄

      • Anne 10.1.1
        23 December 2015 at 7:12 pm

        Grow up tfh.

        I got the message some time ago that you don’t like me. The feeling is mutual.

        • tinfoilhat 10.1.1.1
          23 December 2015 at 7:34 pm

          🙄

        • George Hendry 10.1.1.2
          23 December 2015 at 7:46 pm

          Greetings, Anne 🙂

          I’d say it’s not so much that tfh doesn’t like you as that the point you make is totally valid and he doesn’t like having no show of contesting it. But he can hope to annoy and divert you.

          • Anne 10.1.1.2.1
            23 December 2015 at 7:48 pm

            A she… I think. 🙂

            • George Hendry 10.1.1.2.1.1
              23 December 2015 at 8:52 pm

              Possibly so, and I have to admit to having concluded with insufficient evidence.

              Further down the thread (she?) comments more fully than with a mere eyeroll…

              ‘…
              The point Anne makes has no validity whatsoever. It is however, yet another example of her oft-times cyclopian commentary on this blog….’

              No one’s comment has ‘no validity whatsoever.’ But, can she dispose of you in two lines ?!…

              Afraid not. The next one takes 16 (in this thread’s format) and even includes a hyperlink. Less trolling, more content.

              How to get rid of trolls? Just keep working until they feel it’s easier not to.

          • tinfoilhat 10.1.1.2.2
            23 December 2015 at 8:30 pm

            The point Anne makes has no validity whatsoever. It is however, yet another example of her oft-times cyclopian commentary on this blog.

          • Paul 10.1.1.2.3
            23 December 2015 at 8:30 pm

            Yup, he uses that argument on me as well.
            It means you have an argument he has no response to.

            • tinfoilhat 10.1.1.2.3.1
              23 December 2015 at 8:33 pm

              🙄

              The comment to you was as below..

              Paul 16
              23 December 2015 at 3:01 pm
              Officially a puppet state of the U.S.

              http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11565399

              Reply
              tinfoilhat 16.1
              23 December 2015 at 3:05 pm
              Not sure how that judge’s ruling makes NZ a puppet state of the US.

              Best you read the judge’s full decision before forming opinion, many of those on the political right would have been well advised to do the same regarding the recent decision regarding the illegality of the police search of Nicky Hagar’s home before spouting uninformed opinion.

  11. George Hendry 11
    23 December 2015 at 7:36 pm

    What Nicky Hager and Kim Dotcom share is having been on the receiving end of high profile expensive police raids.

    Where they differ seems to be that Dotcom was less aware than Hager of what he was up against, and thereby made more mistakes which could be used to trip him up.

    Thanks to that, whereas only one troll ventured onto yesterday’s Hager thread, more feel safe appearing on this one.

    For all his vaunted wealth, maybe we should look at crowdfunding Mr Dotcom if he is to be denied proper self defence using his own resources. It would be a democratic thing to do and therefore good for us here too.

    But whatever, we shouldn’t lose track of him or just leave him at the mercy of a government known for international genocide and torture. No one deserves that, partly because no one can inflict it without demeaning themself.

    • Anne 11.1
      23 December 2015 at 7:52 pm

      Where they differ seems to be that Dotcom was less aware than Hager of what he was up against, and thereby made more mistakes which could be used to trip him up.

      Hone Harawira made a similar point on TV1 this evening.

    • Grant 11.2
      23 December 2015 at 8:07 pm

      “For all his vaunted wealth, maybe we should look at crowdfunding Mr Dotcom if he is to be denied proper self defence using his own resources. It would be a democratic thing to do and therefore good for us here too.”

      I was happy to contribute to Hager’s defence fund but you surely have to be joking about doing the same for Dotcom?

      “Now, on the cusp of 2016, Dotcom has recovered. The fight has fresh fuel – money.

      Dotcom’s expat Kiwi lawyer, Hong Kong senior counsel Gerard McCoy has unlocked the way to a $50 million pool of Dotcom’s cash, restrained when he was first arrested, and won access to the money for living expenses and legal fees.” http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11565404

      • weka 11.2.1
        23 December 2015 at 8:17 pm

        Can’t say I can see any particularly good political reason to crowdfund KDC’s defence. I feel sorry for the guy (and the others), but he lost my political support when he walked away from the Internet Party and Mana simply because he lost an election and his ego got a whack. All other things that happened before that aside, he ended up looking just plain selfish.

        • George Hendry 11.2.1.1
          23 December 2015 at 9:07 pm

          @ Grant and Weka –

          As he now has access to funds, extra help may fortunately not be needed.

          While clearly Mr Dotcom may not be as pure as the driven snow (unlike Mr Hager who comes close to that standard), as a citizen he has the right to a full legal defence. While crowdfunding his case may go nowhere near meeting its costs, I believe such funding could be a gesture of solidarity in what may well turn out to have been a practice run for how things will work under TPPA.

          In spite of certain political missteps (a learning experience for him I’m sure) he has neither used force nor advocated violence, which can’t validly be said of the government arrayed against him, and I think we all owe him for exposing the local illegal spying at least.

          • Olwyn 11.2.1.1.1
            23 December 2015 at 9:39 pm

            While clearly Mr Dotcom may not be as pure as the driven snow (unlike Mr Hager who comes close to that standard), as a citizen he has the right to a full legal defence.

            Spot on! It is up to them to show he has a case to answer to, it is not up to him to show he qualifies for sainthood. The shocking, gloating, remark from NZH shows a corruption of mind that is scarily becoming a NZ norm.

          • Grant 11.2.1.1.2
            23 December 2015 at 10:37 pm

            ‘as a citizen he has the right to a full legal defence.’

            a) He has residency but not citizenship
            b) He has a full legal defence and access to 50 milliion bucks to pay for it.
            c) Personally I don’t think he’s a case for crowd funding, but hey, if you reckon so, set up a page and see how many people agree with you.

          • weka 11.2.1.1.3
            23 December 2015 at 10:55 pm

            I don’t think he did learn from what happened to the Internet Party (or he learnt the wrong things).

            I still don’t see what is is about his situation that deserves crowdfunding, esp alongside all the other worthy causes.

    • Chooky 11.3
      23 December 2015 at 9:09 pm

      +100 George Henry…well said

    • Incognito 11.4
      23 December 2015 at 11:35 pm

      I think the most obvious difference between Hager and KDC is (in) their personalities.

      And although they have in common that they riled the wrong people and got raided (for it) they were singled out for completely different reasons.

      That said, KDC muddied things by getting involved in things that he did not understand well (e.g. The Moment of Truth and his subsequent ‘foray’ into NZ politics) while Nicky Hager stuck to his knitting.

      • Molly 11.4.1
        24 December 2015 at 9:03 am

        The Moment of Truth was exceptionally informative and well-done if what you were seeking was an explanation by the main players of the government’s involvement with the 5 Eyes network.

        That in itself was a worthwhile contribution to the debate that was funded(?) by Dotcom.

        As a positive effect on his individual circumstance, it was another opportunity for those who wished to vilify him to do so, for lack of “smoking gun” evidence.

        But the value of the rest of the information given to NZers if they chose to attend or watch is still very high.

  12. Grantoc 12
    23 December 2015 at 7:51 pm

    Its clear that the judiciary along with the police are entirely corrupt and simply dance to the tune of their political masters (The Nats); except of course those judges that find in favor of Nicki Hager and others who the left approve of.

    So of course the judge in Dotcom’s case is corrupt and a political lackey because he didn’t come out with a judgement to the left’s liking.

    He only applied the law as he understands it. How dare he. The left know better.

  13. Wayne 13
    23 December 2015 at 8:06 pm

    Probably this case is not an issue I should comment as such, so on substantive points I won’t.
    But in respect of the integrity and independence of the New Zealand judiciary I will. I consider that some of the aspersions made by some commenters on this site are completely unwarranted. The judge wil have decided the case on the basis of law, not politics.
    The New Zealand judiciary has an international reputation for integrity and independence. That is why many of them are chosen for international tribunals where independence is of fundamental importance.
    Whatever your view of the Kim Dotcom case, the accusations of political bias on the part of the judiciary are unfair and untrue. And are not worthy of serious consideration.

    • Anne 13.1
      23 December 2015 at 8:40 pm

      The New Zealand judiciary has an international reputation for integrity and independence.

      Used to… not so much now I fear. Look at the way a judge used his authority to fully suppress all details of a court case because of the accused’s close ties to the National Party. This… despite the fact it was in the public’s interest to know at least some of the material – as happens in most other similar cases.

      • weka 13.1.1
        23 December 2015 at 10:52 pm

        If the details were fully suppressed how would we know the judgement was improper?

        • Anne 13.1.1.1
          24 December 2015 at 8:52 am

          The final court case is still to come so there’s been no judgement. I was referring to the lower court hearings that occurred earlier this year. We don’t know what took place because all aspects of the case have been suppressed including which District Court was involved. It is very unusual to have such minor details also suppressed so you have to ask yourself what influences were brought to bear?

          • weka 13.1.1.1.1
            24 December 2015 at 11:42 am

            Let me rephrase,

            If the details were fully suppressed how would we know the suppression order was improper?

            There might be influences bought to bear, but a suppression order and a connection to the National Party is pretty tenuous.

    • Stuart Munro 13.2
      23 December 2015 at 8:48 pm

      Your endorsement does nothing to support your assertion of the independence of the judiciary.

    • Sacha 13.3
      23 December 2015 at 8:59 pm

      “The judge wil have decided the case on the basis of law, not politics.”

      On this I agree. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

    • Kev 13.4
      23 December 2015 at 9:51 pm

      Even the briefest reading of the judge’s decision should be enough to convince any reasonable person that any accusation of political bias and or influence is completely unwarranted.

      For anyone who supported Dotcom and thought he would not be extradited it’s quite simple. Man up. Admit you got it wrong. And stop digging yourself further into a hole by pushing ludicrous conspiracy theories.

      • Sacha 13.4.1
        23 December 2015 at 10:25 pm

        Might still prevail in a higher court. The US case is hardly unassailable.

        • Kev 13.4.1.1
          23 December 2015 at 10:38 pm

          When the judge uses words like “overwhelming”, it pretty much is unassailable.

          • weka 13.4.1.1.1
            23 December 2015 at 10:54 pm

            Judges sometimes get it wrong though.

            “Even the briefest reading of the judge’s decision should be enough to convince any reasonable person that any accusation of political bias and or influence is completely unwarranted.”

            That’s an assertion. Care to explain why you think it’s true?

          • Richard Christie 13.4.1.1.2
            23 December 2015 at 11:04 pm

            When the judge uses words like “overwhelming”, it pretty much is unassailable.

            Tom Eichelbaum used similar words in his notoriously incompentent assessment of Peter Ellis’s guilt.

            I rather think that such language is indicative of an attempt to bluster.

          • Stuart Munro 13.4.1.1.3
            23 December 2015 at 11:37 pm

            No, this is like your comments, rhetorical, it carries little weight. The important thing is the rationale behind the decision. If the reasoning is strong the judgment is more likely to be upheld.

            • Kev 13.4.1.1.3.1
              24 December 2015 at 9:24 am

              And if you read the decision you’d see the reasoning behind the decision is actually very strong. By using the word “overwhelming” the judge is sending a message to other judges. And that message is think very carefully before you overturn my decision because I feel very strongly that my decision is right.

              • Stuart Munro …
                24 December 2015 at 10:00 am

                No, by using the word ‘overwhelming’ he is signalling to all legal folk not to pay much attention to what follows. It is an appeal to pathos with no legal merit.

                Actually the volume of evidence is a side issue – there are other important matters: Is Dotcom, then resident in Hong Kong, subject to US law? Most judges would say no.

                Was the evidence obtained legally? Clearly it was not.

                Can Dotcom be extradited for a civil matter? Only with the collusion of a corrupt government and a corruptible judiciary.

  14. Sacha 14
    23 December 2015 at 8:09 pm

    Auckland law professor Bill Hodge gives some context to RNZ (from about 3m): http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/thepanel/audio/201784032/dotcom-loses-extradition-fight

    Interesting differences of opinion legally, though I’d back a world-recognised IP law expert like Lawrence Lessig any day.

  15. Esoteric Pineapples 15
    23 December 2015 at 8:11 pm

    All the while I can download all of David Bowie’s Ziggy Stardust and Hunky Dory from YouTube plus lots of other music. If copyright is the issue how come no one from Google who owns YouTube is in the docks.

    • Chooky 15.1
      23 December 2015 at 9:14 pm

      …apparently Google was next on their hit list…but they may have bitten off more than they could chew ( see above interview with Dotcom)…looks like they were bribing politicians as well

      • Sacha 15.1.1
        23 December 2015 at 10:29 pm

        The failed case against Youtube is one of Dotcom’s precedents. Both sites had uploader incentives plus well-used takedown mechanisms compliant with the DMCA law.

      • Leftie 15.1.2
        24 December 2015 at 7:43 pm

        @Chooky

        Yes, and there is no doubt that they thought with John key’s interfering assistance, that Dotcom would be a very easy target to make an example of, and didn’t anticipate how hard and difficult it would be.

    • Kev 15.2
      23 December 2015 at 10:45 pm

      Maybe because the copyright holders of Stardust and Dory haven’t asked YouTube to take the videos down?

  16. Observer (Tokoroa) 16
    23 December 2015 at 8:43 pm

    here we go again…

    The only corrupt free judges in the world are New Zealanders.
    The only great footballers are the NZ Rugby players
    The only great place to bring up kids is New Zealand (in spite of an extremely high crime rate)
    The only great Prime Minister in the World is the NZ Prime Minister
    The Only great Justice Minister in the World is the current Justice Minister.
    The only great bum wipers in the world are New Zealanders.

    No wonder the rest of the world regard kiwis as smug little gnomes.

    You Wayne you will be pleased to know, are the greatest of the New Zealand simpletons in the whole world.

  17. Kev 17
    23 December 2015 at 9:33 pm

    Here is a link to the entire judgement:

    https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/293889722?access_key=key-o4cXDGWDtxiGqopZt65O&allow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll

    Leaving aside allegations of political influence, the challenge is to why the judge is wrong.

  18. Tory 18
    23 December 2015 at 10:14 pm

    More tin foil on display here than what covered the Lunar Lander, shit just remembered the left nut cases also think the moon landings are a conspiracy dreamed up by the capitalists in the US. At least you can have solice in knowing the earth is flat……

  19. upnorth 19
    23 December 2015 at 11:14 pm

    why isn’t Kelvin Davis on the front page protecting Kim Dot Com rights?
    Where is Andrew little?
    Where is Ms Fox

    Kim Dot Com is our very own 501

    Please – any credence to Labour now stands firmly with the Labour Leadership – If the do not stand up for KDC then they are nothing but headliners.

    Where is the outrage from labour?

    • lprent 19.1
      24 December 2015 at 6:40 pm

      Where is the outrage from labour?

      I suspect that they have no particular interest in Kim DotCom. Their outrage was pretty much confined to doing what an opposition has to do, looking at the implications on the government’s organs like the roles of the police, immigration and security organisations. It is not about even thinking about interfering with the separate branch of the state – the judiciary.

      That kind of political stupidity is in the realms of those who don’t understand why there is a separation of powers and processes within the state.

      You for instance…

      (anyone care to guess if this bozo understands what I just said?)

  20. fisiani 20
    23 December 2015 at 11:18 pm

    the paranoia of the Left is clear to see from many posters. Without so much as reading the judgement they instantly declare political bias. Incredible.

    • Sacha 20.1
      23 December 2015 at 11:25 pm

      and how many of the ‘enthusiasts’ at Kiwibog and/or Whaleoik have read nearly 300 pages before firing up their browsers?

    • Stuart Munro 20.2
      23 December 2015 at 11:41 pm

      It’s not paranoia: the right are determined to wreck everything good about NZ.

    • appleboy 20.3
      24 December 2015 at 9:46 am

      Moronic as usual.

      FACT – ISP’s under US law cannot be held liable for users uploading copyrighted material.

      FACT – You cannot be extradited for copyright infringement anyway. That’s a civil matter.

      FACT- Mega took down 99.9% of all take down requests.

      FACT – Raid on KDC using 70 armed police , for a copyright case was F**KED.

      FACT – US illegally took copies of data from KDC from NZ

      FACT – John key saying he had never heard of KDC until the day of the raid was a bare faced LIE.

      FACT NZ Govt search warrant and monitoring of communications was illegal.

      FACT Fisiani has inability to see this case as political even though the MPAA are million dollar funders of Republicans and Democrats to feather their interests.

      • Kev 20.3.1
        24 December 2015 at 12:38 pm

        Considering the number of mistakes you make in your post, have you actually read or even gone over the judge’s decision? A simple yes or no will do.

  21. Murray Simmonds 21
    24 December 2015 at 6:18 am

    Tory, fisiani:

    Can you please provide just one shred of worthwhile empirical evidence to back up your assertions that paranoia and conspiracy theorising are more prevalent among left-leaning than among right-leaning commentators?

    Hint – start with McCarthyism and the notion of “Reds under the bed”. Then progress from there . . . . .

  22. Karen 22
    24 December 2015 at 8:21 am

    The best summary I have seen of the situation so far is by David Fisher:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11565507

    I agree with him that there should be independent inquiries into the actions of the Immigration Department and the Police with this case. Whether the USA has the right to extradite Dotcom over copyright is the issue and I am sure it will eventually go to the Supreme Court, so we are years away from any decision.

    • Kev 22.1
      24 December 2015 at 9:40 am

      What’s so good about it? All he says is that based on the evidence Dotcom didn’t stand a chance but the evidence still has to be tested in court. The rest is just fodder.

      • Karen 22.1.1
        24 December 2015 at 12:31 pm

        If that’s your interpretation then your reading and comprehension skills are somewhat limited.

  23. Xanthe 23
    24 December 2015 at 9:43 am

    But for all the “overwhelming evidence” the judge fails to address the simple question “was an extraditable offense committed?”. The judgment fails on a point of law.

    • Kev 23.1
      24 December 2015 at 12:34 pm

      The judge does address that question. Have you actually read or gone over the decision? A simple yes or no will suffice.

      • appleboy 23.1.1
        24 December 2015 at 2:27 pm

        Oh another Fisiani one eyed right winger. By US law ISP’s or cloud storage companies cannot be sued for copyright infringing material by users.

        Questions?

        Why did the IUS refuse to allow KDC to pay for experts to defend his case?

        Why did the US conspire with NZ to illegally spy on KDC? To illegally take copies of evidence out of NZ?

        Why does the US use a judge that used to work for Disney? and why did the US pick a prosecutors office that is after Assange and Snowden, and just happens to have the highest % of govt workers in the jury pool?

        Why did John key say he had never heard of KDC until the day before the raid?

        Why why why …

  24. savenz 24
    24 December 2015 at 9:55 am

    Dotcom was never going to be allowed a fair hearing. The NZ judge who was the expert in copywrite and Internet was forced out after retweeting comments about the US.

    The judges who understand Internet and copywrite and illegal searches are actually not allowed to hear the case.

    This is a district judge decision. However it is clear that the US and NZ government is fighting very dirty, removing Judges, doing illegal searches, removing funds so Dotcom can’t defend himself, and justice is not being seen to be done.

    “The judge overseeing the Kim Dotcom extradition case has stepped down after making comments suggesting the United States was the “enemy”.

    Judge David Harvey surrendered his role in the case after making comments during a copyright discussion at an internet conference.

    An internet law expert, Judge Harvey had been considered the perfect choice to hear arguments on whether Dotcom and his Megaupload colleagues should be extradited by the United States to face charges of criminal copyright violation.

    The district court’s chief judge Jan-Marie Doogue said Judge Harvey had made the decision to step down from hearing the case.

    “He recognises that remarks made in the context of a paper he delivered on copyright law at a recent internet conference could reflect on his impartiality and that the appropriate response is for him to step down from the case.”

    The video could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported.
    Read: Hip-hop star in link to Dotcom case.

    Judge Harvey made the comments at NetHui during a conference discussion on copyright and trade talks with the US. He referred to a tweet which had played on a reference to cartoonist Walt Kelly: “We have met the enemy and he is [the] U.S.”

    The case, scheduled for March, would now be heard by Judge Nevin Dawson. Judge Dawson has previously heard elements of the case including making the decision to allow the internet giant bail in February after a month in jail.

    The case has been bruising since the outset with the judge initially hearing it reprimanded for treatment of media.

    It has also seen criticism of the Crown Law Office and the police. The wrong type of restraining order was initially used to seize the cash and assets of the accused. Then the search warrants were ruled invalid because they were too broad, making the search and seizure illegal. It also emerged the FBI had taken evidence back to the US without the knowledge of the police and Crown – and now want to use it to help extradite the Megaupload accused.

    Auckland university associate professor Bill Hodge said the case involved new technology arguments in an “antiquated” legal framework argued by talented lawyers. “It is uniquely high stakes.”

    He said it was the “case of a lifetime” for Judge Harvey. “He is recognised as one of New Zealand’s experts – not just as a judge but as an expert who has gone into copyright issues.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10820496

    • ianmac 24.1
      24 December 2015 at 1:41 pm

      Thanks for that info savenz. Pity to have lost out on Judge Harvey but surely he is not alone.

      • ianmac 24.1.1
        24 December 2015 at 2:23 pm

        The case will never make it to a criminal trial nor for that matter a civil one.
        As usual Gordon has a well thought out take which ends with:
        “However, the intention of the US action against Dotcom is entirely about deterrence – by- harassment. And unfortunately, the New Zealand courts have now become accomplices in this travesty.
        “http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2015/12/24/gordon-campbell-on-the-dotcom-extradition-decision/comment-page-1/#comment-554488

          • ianmac 24.1.1.1.1
            24 December 2015 at 3:34 pm

            Ta. I live and learn Veuto.

            • Anne 24.1.1.1.1.1
              24 December 2015 at 5:17 pm

              I was beaten to it. Gordon Campbell is right on the button as always:

              Summing up words at end of main item:

              However, the intention of the US action against Dotcom is entirely about deterrence – by – harassment. And unfortunately, the New Zealand courts have now become accomplices in this travesty.

              And there you have it.

              “Don’t worry. Be happy” reflected on the Erebus Inquiry of the early 1980s and the way Justice Mahon was treated because he had the temerity to stand up to the Government of the day (National of course – under Muldoon) and he came down with a damming indictment of Air NZ. He was forced into early retirement and the ongoing malice and innuendo waged against him eventually killed him. I am in no doubt that some judges will be very mindful of that notorious and disgusting saga when going about their deliberations.

              Edit: I see you have already referred to the quote ianmac. Never mind – it’s worth repeating.

        • Kev 24.1.1.2
          24 December 2015 at 3:15 pm

          Goes to show that Gordon hasn’t even bothered reading the decision. The charges involve criminal copyright and secondary copyright infringement isn’t even mentioned. And the judge states very clearly why safe harbour provisions don’t apply.

    • Tautuhi 24.2
      25 December 2015 at 1:08 am

      Sounds like a Mickey Mouse outfit?

  25. Manuka AOR 25
    24 December 2015 at 9:58 am

    In comments above, the KDC case and ruling have been compared to or contrasted with that of Nicky Hager. It could also be compared with the cases of Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. In each case there seems very little possibility of an impartial hearing or a fair trial, if such were undertaken in the US.

  26. Kev 26
    24 December 2015 at 3:07 pm

    Since most of you are too lazy to actually read the decision yourselves (otherwise you wouldn’t be repeating the same dumbass comments all the time) I’ve put together a “summary” for you where I’ve divided the ruling into topics and quoted relevant passages from the ruling. So for example if you say “but copyright isn’t an indictable offence” then you just need to go over “On the extradition laws not being applicable” and “On criminal copyright infringement.” Or if you’re saying “but megaupload took down offending files and they had a takedown thingy” then you just need to go over the part headed “On non-compliance with safe harbour provisions.”

    [deleted]

    [lprent: This is way too long to be a comment. Plus I did a fast scan of it and rapidly found that at least 3 of your explanations of what the judgement said were statements of fact that were a) not supported by the part of the judgement you were quoting and/or; b) were actionable against us and/or; c) where I think you are simply lying.

    I’m really not a believer in the lazy LF post / Cameron Slater affidavit conspiracy school of simply inventing interpretations about legal documents, and I really don’t like idiots putting us into legal liability.

    Banned for 6 months. ]

    • ianmac 26.1
      24 December 2015 at 3:36 pm

      Hooray Lprent. Thanks.

    • joe90 26.2
      24 December 2015 at 8:55 pm

      A wee sulk over at the sewer.

      Also I’m currently considering whether or not I have a case for defamation against him and The Standard.

      Merry f’ing christmas.

    • lprent 26.3
      24 December 2015 at 10:35 pm

      Kevin had a whine about the ban at YourNZ including republishing his comment. So i had another look at it.

      Turns out that he was in a large part quoting the applicants arguments which were in the judgement. It was no wonder my bullshit meter went off so hard. I got to a section about “mens rea” wondered how in the hell that got into a hearing. Turns out it was entirely the applicants arguments about mens actus on conspiracy….

      Definitely not part of the judges ruling.

      FFS how can someone be so frigging stupid about law. But hey Kev is a “Oiler”, he would have to be stupid by definition.

      • Tracey 26.3.1
        26 December 2015 at 10:56 am

        If he learned his legal interpretation and analysis at LF/WO his post makes perfect sense and could be used for students to study. Students learn better with humour!

      • Magisterium 26.3.2
        26 December 2015 at 10:42 pm

        Turns out it was entirely the applicants arguments about mens actus on conspiracy

        WTF is “mens actus”?

        • lprent 26.3.2.1
          28 December 2015 at 9:53 am

          Me being facetious. Mens rea is the ‘guilty mind’, actus reus is the ‘guilty act’

          But the specific section in the judgement was on the alleged conspiracy, which in itself, is a crime of the mind. As far as I could see the applicants, and certainly the legal idiot kev, haven’t provided actual evidence of alleged acts in the section I was referring to. They provided the kind of blathering that goes on in private online media.

          For instance, the contacts Cameron Slater said to the Chisholm enquiry that he didn’t have with Judith Collins, but that he’d boasted about with detail to his correspondents. Apparently Chisholm accepted it.

          Or the blathering about tossing a bus using a catapult that excited police and prosecution in the 2007 raids.

          The non guilty acts of the mind? It appears to be a evolving branch of law.

  27. Sacha 27
    24 December 2015 at 9:16 pm

    Here is some of what Kev has been relying on, from kiwibog (via donotlink): http://www.donotlink.com/hpcy

    Does sound interesting. Will try to fit in reading the judge’s full decision over break.

    • lprent 27.1
      24 December 2015 at 11:18 pm

      I had a glance at it. Basically in it David Farrar looked only at the listing of the Applicant’s submissions with just one paragraph of the actual ruling. This follows his traditional habit of ignoring the logic in favour of chasing sound bites.

      However you’re right, it is exactly the same stupidity that Kev was doing.

      The problem is that the extradition to me looks very suspect on 2 and possibly 3 out of the 5 because the match between US laws and ours looks like it doesn’t really exist or is vague.

      Has anyone seen anything that shows how he connects the Crimes Act for the racketeering? Because I can’t. Maybe it is the chocolates…..

  28. Tracey 28
    26 December 2015 at 10:51 am

    It is a decision of the District Court so there is some way to go yet. Remember John Banks recent interaction with our Court system?

  29. Xanthe 29
    27 December 2015 at 4:53 pm

    Subtle shift in the heralds position in their editorial.
    While they are still pushing the line that the matter needs to be moved to the US .
    They now appear to be allowing for the possibility that it is not so “overwhelmingly” one sided after all. And that there are maby matters of policy to consider. Overall it feels like the tide is starting to come back in for DotCom

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.