MikeB4:

 

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?

 

No, the process would be, if the courts decide that either there's no case for extradition, or that the other side isn't looking like they will provide a fair trial (or death sentence or whatever), the judge says no extradition. Then, if the defendant has committed any crimes in NZ punishable and provable under NZ law, there'll be a whole 'nother can of worms. But since he's been pretty much a model citizen in kiwiland, he'd be turned loose, and be free to start all his proceedings for wrongful arrest, unlawful seizure of his assets, etc, etc, etc.