Dotcom appeal to be livestreamed

Forums › Off topic › Dotcom appeal to be livestreamed

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#1619948 30-Aug-2016 21:53

BlueShift:

As I understand it (IANAL) the US want him for a bunch of copyright violations which they have a reasonable chance of having a case that will stand up in court (whether they would win or not is what courts are for deciding) BUT, those charges are not sufficient to have him extradited, as extradition requires a crime that in NZ would result in (I think) more than 2 years prison, and copyright crime in NZ isn't treated that harshly. So, the US have tacked on a pile of racketeering and organized crime-type charges, which meet the NZ standards to be eligible for extradition, but they will have a much trickier job of persuading a judge that there is a case to answer for them.

Yup, this is pretty well accepted to be the case. Watch how fast the racketeering and money laundering charges are dropped once (if) he's on US soil as there are so far removed from all the arguments the prosecutors have been making to date that it's pretty obvious they have no real play there.

Given copyright infringement isn't an offence he can be extradited for, the hearing should probably be focusing on the racketeering and laundering changes alone and from all i've seen so far, I doubt they would get far.

Love him or hate him, it's pretty hard to argue he's not getting proper justice here - and we should all be concerned about that.

Twitter: ajobbins

blakamin

4431 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1306
Inactive user

#1619963 30-Aug-2016 22:02

So who's paying for the streaming and the extradition trial? Taxpayers?

blakamin

4431 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1306
Inactive user

#1619965 30-Aug-2016 22:03

ajobbins:

Love him or hate him, it's pretty hard to argue he's not getting proper justice here - and we should all be concerned about that.

He knowingly paid people to upload pirated content. Where's the proper justice come into it?

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1619967 30-Aug-2016 22:11

ajobbins:
BlueShift:

As I understand it (IANAL) the US want him for a bunch of copyright violations which they have a reasonable chance of having a case that will stand up in court (whether they would win or not is what courts are for deciding) BUT, those charges are not sufficient to have him extradited, as extradition requires a crime that in NZ would result in (I think) more than 2 years prison, and copyright crime in NZ isn't treated that harshly. So, the US have tacked on a pile of racketeering and organized crime-type charges, which meet the NZ standards to be eligible for extradition, but they will have a much trickier job of persuading a judge that there is a case to answer for them.

Yup, this is pretty well accepted to be the case. Watch how fast the racketeering and money laundering charges are dropped once (if) he's on US soil as there are so far removed from all the arguments the prosecutors have been making to date that it's pretty obvious they have no real play there.

Given copyright infringement isn't an offence he can be extradited for, the hearing should probably be focusing on the racketeering and laundering changes alone and from all i've seen so far, I doubt they would get far.

Love him or hate him, it's pretty hard to argue he's not getting proper justice here - and we should all be concerned about that.

He is getting the opportunities to present his case in court with all the legal representation he can muster how is he not getting proper justice?

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#1619985 30-Aug-2016 22:36

MikeB4: He is getting the opportunities to present his case in court with all the legal representation he can muster how is he not getting proper justice?

The fact that the US was able to seize everything and are able to present cherry picked evidence that almost certainly lacks context to suit their case while denying the defendant access to the the same information they could possibly use to counter and defend, under the guise he will get access to it in a full trial on US soil which everyone knows will be at best, unfair.

Also the numerous examples of breach of due process that have been excused without consequence and work to the prosecutors favor (for example the illegal, militarised raids; illegal exportation of hard drive clones etc).

If you can put aside your thoughts about KDC as a person/if you think he's guilty of a crime or not, it's actually *insane* and quite scary that someone in New Zealand can be in such a position of having to defend themselves against yet unproven allegations of a foreign country they've never been near.

The bar for extradition is incredibly low - and the fact they haven't been successful yet says a lot about the strength of their case.

Twitter: ajobbins

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1619987 30-Aug-2016 22:40

ajobbins:
MikeB4: He is getting the opportunities to present his case in court with all the legal representation he can muster how is he not getting proper justice?

The fact that the US was able to seize everything and are able to present cherry picked evidence that almost certainly lacks context to suit their case while denying the defendant access to the the same information they could possibly use to counter and defend, under the guise he will get access to it in a full trial on US soil which everyone knows will be at best, unfair.

Also the numerous examples of breach of due process that have been excused without consequence and work to the prosecutors favor (for example the illegal, militarised raids; illegal exportation of hard drive clones etc).

If you can put aside your thoughts about KDC as a person/if you think he's guilty of a crime or not, it's actually *insane* and quite scary that someone in New Zealand can be in such a position of having to defend themselves against yet unproven allegations of a foreign country they've never been near.

The bar for extradition is incredibly low - and the fact they haven't been successful yet says a lot about the strength of their case.

I like you cannot say he is guilty or innocent. I have not been present at the hearings and are not privy to the evidence for or against. The matters are rightly before the courts and going through due process.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1619989 30-Aug-2016 23:03

Not that it would apply here, but out of interest, does NZ disallow extradition where the death penalty would be a possible outcome?

Clearly, murder would reach the bar for a crime that gets more than 2 years in jail so prima face would be extraditable. However, would we refuse it if the accused could be put to death?

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#1620001 31-Aug-2016 00:30

Geektastic:

Not that it would apply here, but out of interest, does NZ disallow extradition where the death penalty would be a possible outcome?

Clearly, murder would reach the bar for a crime that gets more than 2 years in jail so prima face would be extraditable. However, would we refuse it if the accused could be put to death?

I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in this again but this is an important question. Section 27(2)(ca) of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 is your answer. The Attorney-General of NZ may refuse to provide assistance, if the offence for which assistance has been requested is eligible for the death penalty in the requesting country and that the A-G does not receive sufficient assurance from the requesting country that the DP won't be carried out.

In practice, due to the political consensus against the DP (which only the odd crackpot in NZ First or the Conservative Party will debate), NZ will always refuse to cooperate in such extradition or general requests for assistance cases. People will recall a case involving a Chinese student who was accused of murdering a taxi driver in NZ. Said student ran off back to China and the Chinese refused to extradite him back to NZ (we do not have an extradition treaty with China) but said that if we provide the evidence, they will try and punish him. NZ only agreed to cooperate if the Chinese undertook to take the DP off the table. They did and the accused was convicted and (IIRC) sentenced to around 15 years jail.

I believe John Key has been on the record saying that NZ will only sign an extradition treaty with China if they agree to take the DP off the table in all cases.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1620156 31-Aug-2016 12:31

here it is:

Ooops - doesn't work embedded. here's the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufD9BjEZ_c4

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3317

Trusted

#1620201 31-Aug-2016 13:28

I watched a bit of that. Jesus, is that lawyer guy being paid by the word or by the hour?

networkn

Networkn
32864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15455

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1620204 31-Aug-2016 13:34

MikeB4:
ajobbins:

MikeB4: He is getting the opportunities to present his case in court with all the legal representation he can muster how is he not getting proper justice?

The fact that the US was able to seize everything and are able to present cherry picked evidence that almost certainly lacks context to suit their case while denying the defendant access to the the same information they could possibly use to counter and defend, under the guise he will get access to it in a full trial on US soil which everyone knows will be at best, unfair.

Also the numerous examples of breach of due process that have been excused without consequence and work to the prosecutors favor (for example the illegal, militarised raids; illegal exportation of hard drive clones etc).

If you can put aside your thoughts about KDC as a person/if you think he's guilty of a crime or not, it's actually *insane* and quite scary that someone in New Zealand can be in such a position of having to defend themselves against yet unproven allegations of a foreign country they've never been near.

The bar for extradition is incredibly low - and the fact they haven't been successful yet says a lot about the strength of their case.

I like you cannot say he is guilty or innocent. I have not been present at the hearings and are not privy to the evidence for or against. The matters are rightly before the courts and going through due process.

I think that the argument here is that due process should allow all parties to see all evidence that is being presented in either the defense or the prosecution that that in this instance it's not occurring as it should be. Therefore he isn't getting due process.

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1620232 31-Aug-2016 14:13

networkn:

I think that the argument here is that due process should allow all parties to see all evidence that is being presented in either the defense or the prosecution that that in this instance it's not occurring as it should be. Therefore he isn't getting due process.

Absolutely correct me if I am wrong shhhhh not a lawyer. This case is to determine if extradition is valid under law and the larger matter of did Dotcom commit Money Laundering, Copyright infringements etc is the matter for the US Courts not the New Zealand Courts. If I am right all the prosecution needs to prove at this point Prima Facie a case needs to be answered and the possible sentence should guilt be established meets our legal requirements.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#1620263 31-Aug-2016 14:47

MikeB4:

Absolutely correct me if I am wrong shhhhh not a lawyer. This case is to determine if extradition is valid under law and the larger matter of did Dotcom commit Money Laundering, Copyright infringements etc is the matter for the US Courts not the New Zealand Courts. If I am right all the prosecution needs to prove at this point Prima Facie a case needs to be answered and the possible sentence should guilt be established meets our legal requirements.

One of the key issues is that KDC is trying to exercise his legal right to defend himself against extradition, but the US have decided he is a 'fugitive' despite the fact he's never been there. They are effectively using that process and law to sidestep and make it very difficult to defend himself by seizing all of his assets (not just the US ones - all of them) because he refuses to willingly go and answer the case.

We have an extradition hearing process to be followed to determine if there is a prima facie case to answer, as you point out - however by deciding KDC et al are fugitives the US are able to punish him for not submitting regardless, by taking all of his global assets thus making it very hard to fund a defense to the extradition case.

The US is also able to use non-independent 'expert witnesses'' to help their case for extradition (as they did in the first hearing), but with KDC's assets in the possession of the US he can't get US legal advice (e.g. an independent expert witness).

So basically, the US have been using a whole lot of mechanisms that really aren't intended for what they are using for to make it as difficult as possible to defend (not including the well known breaches of process and illegal actions).

The extradition process has mechanisms for the case to be dismissed when one party has been shown to abuse processes, especially in an ongoing manner.

Twitter: ajobbins

networkn

Networkn
32864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15455

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1620266 31-Aug-2016 14:53

ajobbins:

MikeB4:

Absolutely correct me if I am wrong shhhhh not a lawyer. This case is to determine if extradition is valid under law and the larger matter of did Dotcom commit Money Laundering, Copyright infringements etc is the matter for the US Courts not the New Zealand Courts. If I am right all the prosecution needs to prove at this point Prima Facie a case needs to be answered and the possible sentence should guilt be established meets our legal requirements.

One of the key issues is that KDC is trying to exercise his legal right to defend himself against extradition, but the US have decided he is a 'fugitive' despite the fact he's never been there. They are effectively using that process and law to sidestep and make it very difficult to defend himself by seizing all of his assets (not just the US ones - all of them) because he refuses to willingly go and answer the case.

We have an extradition hearing process to be followed to determine if there is a prima facie case to answer, as you point out - however by deciding KDC et al are fugitives the US are able to punish him for not submitting regardless, by taking all of his global assets thus making it very hard to fund a defense to the extradition case.

The US is also able to use non-independent 'expert witnesses'' to help their case for extradition (as they did in the first hearing), but with KDC's assets in the possession of the US he can't get US legal advice (e.g. an independent expert witness).

So basically, the US have been using a whole lot of mechanisms that really aren't intended for what they are using for to make it as difficult as possible to defend (not including the well known breaches of process and illegal actions).

The extradition process has mechanisms for the case to be dismissed when one party has been shown to abuse processes, especially in an ongoing manner.

That was well explained. Excellent.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1620320 31-Aug-2016 16:21

ajobbins:

MikeB4:

Absolutely correct me if I am wrong shhhhh not a lawyer. This case is to determine if extradition is valid under law and the larger matter of did Dotcom commit Money Laundering, Copyright infringements etc is the matter for the US Courts not the New Zealand Courts. If I am right all the prosecution needs to prove at this point Prima Facie a case needs to be answered and the possible sentence should guilt be established meets our legal requirements.

One of the key issues is that KDC is trying to exercise his legal right to defend himself against extradition, but the US have decided he is a 'fugitive' despite the fact he's never been there. They are effectively using that process and law to sidestep and make it very difficult to defend himself by seizing all of his assets (not just the US ones - all of them) because he refuses to willingly go and answer the case.

We have an extradition hearing process to be followed to determine if there is a prima facie case to answer, as you point out - however by deciding KDC et al are fugitives the US are able to punish him for not submitting regardless, by taking all of his global assets thus making it very hard to fund a defense to the extradition case.

The US is also able to use non-independent 'expert witnesses'' to help their case for extradition (as they did in the first hearing), but with KDC's assets in the possession of the US he can't get US legal advice (e.g. an independent expert witness).

So basically, the US have been using a whole lot of mechanisms that really aren't intended for what they are using for to make it as difficult as possible to defend (not including the well known breaches of process and illegal actions).

The extradition process has mechanisms for the case to be dismissed when one party has been shown to abuse processes, especially in an ongoing manner.

Are you suggesting that we should try him here in NZ on the charges that the US have laid and dismiss the extradition treaty?

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7