No bail

January 25th, 2012 at 12:48 pm by David Farrar

Edward Gay at NZ Herald reports:

Internet multimillionaire has been declined .

The German businessman, a resident in New Zealand, is accused of being at the centre of a computer piracy empire through , a website business he co-founded.

Judge David McNaughton delivered his decision at the North Shore District Court today in front of a packed public gallery. …

An immediate appeal has been lodged at the High Court.

The decision is totally unsurprising. His behaviour when arrested combined with four passports and 45 credit cards, screams out flight risk.

I predict the bail decision will not rest at the High Court but they will seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. Likewise the extradition hearing itself will be appealed all the way to the top. The longer they can delay things, then they will use the Ahmed Zaoui trick and argue the time it has taken to get a decision, means it is unfair to keep him in jail (even though they have caused all the delays).

When he finally does get extradited back to the US, I note he has hired Bill Clinton’s old lawyer so that one will also be taken all the way to the Supreme Court. I expect a resolution to be two to three years away.

Tags: , ,

73 Responses to “No bail”

  1. ross (1,454 comments) says:

    > they will use the Ahmed Zaoui trick

    Yeah I’m sure he loved being in solitary confinement.

    [DPF: Don't misrepresent what I said or you'll be outski as the saying goes]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. kowtow (7,585 comments) says:

    Ahmed Zaoui………now there’s another “innocent” man with a number of “dodgy” overseas convictions who could also wangle NZ residency.
    A country fit for criminals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Graeme Edgeler (3,262 comments) says:

    Appealing because you didn’t get bail doesn’t slow things down. The rest can go along in tandem. And if you should have gotten bail then you haven’t caused the delay, the people wrongly opposing and declining bail would have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. tristanb (1,133 comments) says:

    Who cares if he’s a flight risk? What’s he going to do when he gets out, break into someone’s house and set up a website? At least he’s not going to get drunk and murder someone innocent on the street.

    What about that guy who killed that TVNZ journalist as he was walking home from work? Bailed.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/6178765/Phillip-Cottrell-murder-accused-teen-bailed
    “A teenager charged with the murder of Wellington Radio New Zealand journalist Phillip Cottrell has been given bail. ”

    And of course that loser Ashkay Chand, after being charged with kidnapping a girl, being released on bail by some **self-censored**, only to murder her.

    Old news from 2008:
    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/1014/murder-suspects-bail-extremely-scary039
    “More than 100 people charged with killing others have been released on bail in the past two years, new figures show. ”

    This guy is being shafted. It’s manifestly unjust that you are treated better in this country for murdering an innocent stranger than you are for setting up a website that people use to download movies and albums. The crime’s not even affecting NZ!

    The courts (and the politicians) have the wrong priorities. They should be protecting their citizens, not the corporations of the US. But they don’t seem to care about violent offenders.

    (BTW Ahmed Zaoui was a terrorist, there’s a big difference. Dotcom ran a website that might have been eating into the profits of the US entertainment industry.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. KevinH (1,131 comments) says:

    I disagree with the courts decision that he is a flight risk. His passports and money have been seized, he is an unmistakeable figure, and the authorities would have him under home-d, monitored and quite possibly under surveillance.
    The arrest and detention of this man is over the top, it smacks of a trophy arrest by US agencies looking for a whipping dog.
    It will be interesting to see what charges are brought against him, and also how those charges stand up in court.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Spoon (101 comments) says:

    Letting criminals into NZ is a problem now? You lot have just spent the last few years saying you wanted to be more like Australia!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Pete George (22,761 comments) says:

    His passports and money have been seized

    Some have. Quite a few and quite a bit actually, under different indentities. There’s no way of being sure if all his passports, bank accounts and identities are known.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Lance (2,441 comments) says:

    He may or may not have reduced the income from some large US corporations. That is worth 20 years in the electric chair at least.
    No we should only bail murders, repeat restraining order violators and people with dozens of violent convictions like stabbing multiple people (yes I have an example).

    Bullshit on a stick

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Dave A (61 comments) says:

    I see you’ve brought out the “Zaoui is a terrorist” mob again.

    Congratulations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Is it not possible to bail someone to their home with an electronic monitoring device?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. tristanb (1,133 comments) says:

    *Sorry, meant RadioNZ journalist in my above comment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    …………….totally unsurprising. His behaviour when arrested combined with four passports and 45 credit cards, screams out flight risk……………

    I’d fucking hide to if I had two helicopters and 1/2 the Auckland police landing on my front lawn.

    He’s potentially a billionaire, Davison said he collects credit cards, many of which were expired, there was no mention of this being challenged by the Crown when he brought it up at the hearing, so thats a nothing. Four passports, big deal, my wife has three, NZ Aussie and Croatian and she can legally get them in two different names if she wishes. No big deal.

    If he was such a flight risk why did he set up here? when he knew we have an extradition treaty with the US?

    >Screams out fight risk……………,

    a tad emotional , ya think – anyway if he did flight off why do we give a fuck in New Zealand,? he has not offended here in anyway, he has been a ‘ good’ citizen while domiciled here presumably he’s paid a bit of tax and employed people.

    I know there are some very nasty bastards in the Auckland criminal scene living in this area but then they havn’t got the movie studio’s on their case , they just manufacture methamphetamine.

    He’s not a Juan Pablo Escobar, he’s a 6′ 7″ very clever bastard with a great sense of humour if you have read the email he sent to his neighbours.

    My last question is why? if they had all this info regarding alleged activity that was in the indictment that went to a grand jury wasn’t the application for extradition already done?

    Also I want to see Simpson Grierson take on Merideth Connoll over the trust fund too, thats going to be nice wee battle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Pete George,


    There’s no way of being sure if all his passports, bank accounts and identities are known.

    Isn’t that the same for anyone? How can someone prove a negative?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. F E Smith (3,301 comments) says:

    I agree with what PaulEB says above.

    That said, it is normal for the Crown to seek a remand in custody in these proceedings, but extradition cases can take years- do we really think this guy should be locked up for the length of the case?

    But I do tire of people throwing in the “they will seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court” line, and then talking about delay. Delaying anything isn’t on anyone’s mind in cases like this- winning them is. You don’t sit down with your client and discuss how to delay the case, it just doesn’t work like that. I have had from memory, 1 person who genuinely wanted to delay a case. Others have caused delays, but that is generally because they are idiots, not because of any tactics.

    Dotcom will expect to win this case. It will be interesting to see how the arguments go. I don’t write his chances of at all. However, the Crown has shown its hand early by its choice of cousel in the bail argument- one of the nastiest prosecutors you will find; it is obvious they want to win this one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Dave A (61 comments) says:

    if they had all this info regarding alleged activity that was in the indictment that went to a grand jury wasn’t the application for extradition already done?

    The grand jury will have been in secret. That was how news about its hearing of evidence to issue the indictments did not get out.

    They then waited until his birthday to raid the mansion, to ensure he and as many others as possible were there.

    The applications for extradition by necessity followed the arrests.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    I wonder if M-C’s next High Court Judge will put it on the line and take it

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Pete George (22,761 comments) says:

    Potentially it’s the same for everyone, but I doubt that most arrested people have:
    - a track record of multiple identities
    - found with several passports all under different names
    - a heap of credit cards (how credible is “a collector of credit cards”?)
    - $multimillions (albeit uncertain how much is available)

    I’d say that amounts to a higher than average flight risk.

    The firearms were illegal (admitted) but I don’t think that adds to the risk.

    I think the reoffending risk is low in the timeframe of the proceedings, and not a big deal if he did.

    (layman’s opinions)

    I am sure they were well aware of the risk they were taking with the typer of business they were operating, whether or not they felt they were illegal or not.

    It is a bit mind boggling that a whole business operating on a large scale world wide can be shut down completely and immediately, and for as long as the prodeedings take. A real bummer if they are not guilty, and even if they are found guilty that only involves (presumably) a part of their business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Dave A

    I understand all that but, if they had sufficent to take these matters to a Grand Jury and there was sufficent to obtain the warrant for the property here, why wasn’t the application for extradition already done?

    They wouldn’t have needed anymore information surely (or did they?), he’s arrested and bingo. They are talking a remand until the 22nd of February and that will only be another remand hearing because they have 45? days to get the application in.

    I am hoping Davison hasn’t consented to that reamnd, (I can’t imagine he would have) and that they have to bring him to Court each time

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. alex Masterley (1,490 comments) says:

    PEB,

    Given the high profile of this case I expect he will.

    I suspect the judge made the decision on the basis that whatever he did would be appealed so he was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t.

    Personally I didn’t accept the flight risk argument. Purely because Mr Dotcom would be rather obvious where-ever he goes. and as PEB validly points out he would have been aware of the extradition treaty with the US.

    Doesn’t add up really

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. F E Smith (3,301 comments) says:

    I suspect the judge made the decision on the basis that whatever he did would be appealed so he was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t.

    Possibly correct, but I think the judge went the wrong way if that was his thought.  He should have released and then allowed the Crown to appeal.

    Generally in a situation like this you just tell the bloke to surrender all passports (to the Court, not the cops) and there you have it, a very low likelihood of flight. 

    A remand in custody is just ridiculous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Pete George (22,761 comments) says:

    I can’t help thinking there must be something big in this story we haven’t been told yet, something that justifies how it’s being dealt with.

    If it turns out to be just a case of making oodles of dosh off turning a blind eye to illegal downloads then surely it could have been stopped sooner and with a less punitive approach. Busted, pay up, if necessary serve a bit of time, no big deal.

    If it turns out to be a case of doing overkill to make an example of a relatively easy and prosecutable target, don’t mind about stuffing up a few lives and families, then I’d be very concerned.

    It has to be more than that. The indictment doesn’t just mention copyright infringements, it also includes racketeering and money laundering. Does that suggest more than just operating a business involvingon dubious intellectual property rights? Surely there’s something in what they did with the money that justifies the level of operation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. tristanb (1,133 comments) says:

    I read the email. The media are really out to get this guy!

    Email from Dotcom:
    “In all seriousness: My wife, two kids and myself love New Zealand and ‘We come in peace’.”

    Comment from neighbour:
    “His email didn’t scare me, his email I thought was hilarious but one of the neighbours thought that what he was saying was true and I think he was frightened by it.

    Headline on Stuff (the title as seen in browser): “Dotcom email intimidated neighbours”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. metcalph (1,359 comments) says:

    I’m not sure about extradition hearings taking years. Extraditions to the States require only a valid extradition warrant, they are not required to prove the case. There is some potential for hanky pranky (I’m thinking of the Oz magistrate who refused to send somehere on child sex offenses on the grounds that the charges were representative, a supposed denial of Australian’s human rights)) but the scope for legal argument is quite limited.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    ………………racketeering and money laundering……

    Just big scary words to conjur up images of gangster movies for the Grand Jury.

    He’s laundered it into NZ Govt Bonds, fuck thats clever. There is no mention of how its been rinsed by the way just emotive sentences.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Metcalph

    He’s not a US citizen, he’s a New Zealand resident, they can’t just turn up with a piece of paper and fly him off

    Mind you they could invade us and do a ‘Noriaga’ – he was charged with racketeering and money laundering

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. F E Smith (3,301 comments) says:

    metcalph,

    oh, there are lots of things to attack in extradition hearings, especially if the laws don’t quite coincide. You cannot just turn up with an indictment and be granted an extradition order. Given the subject matter of the charges, we could have some good arguments before an order is made.

    So, yes, it could take years. It might not, but it could.

    EDIT: “I’m thinking of the Oz magistrate who refused to send somehere on child sex offenses on the grounds that the charges were representative, a supposed denial of Australian’s human rights”

    Oz doesn’t allow representative charges (unlike NZ. Oz is the better rule, imo) so the charges didn’t match any under Oz law (from memory), hence no extradition. If the charges were non-representative then the extradition would have been ok (again, from memory).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. metcalph (1,359 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay.

    He’s not a US citizen, he’s a New Zealand resident, they can’t just turn up with a piece of paper and fly him off

    I don’t see where you got that from what I wrote. All that is required is a valid extradition order (as well as a declaration that the death penalty won’t be sought in certain cases). The court hearings are to determine whether the extradition order is valid. This has nothing to do with nationality of the person sought for extradition.

    FES

    oh, there are lots of things to attack in extradition hearings, especially if the laws don’t quite coincide.

    And most of these arguments will fall into the category of “clutching at straws while drowning”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Pete George (12,148) Says:
    January 25th, 2012 at 2:40 pm

    Potentially it’s the same for everyone, but I doubt that most arrested people have:
    - a track record of multiple identities
    - found with several passports all under different names
    - a heap of credit cards (how credible is “a collector of credit cards”?)
    - $multimillions (albeit uncertain how much is available)

    I’d say that amounts to a higher than average flight risk.

    Who’s going to fly him anywhere?

    Presumably he only has $300,000 available and I’m not aware that he owns any international means of transport. So what you seem to be saying is that you believe that some private operator is going to fly him out of the country risking their aircraft and entire future for Mr. Dotcom. Far fetched?

    It might be a different situation if we weren’t an island in the middle of nowhere, but given that we are and that a bracelet can be fitted to his ankle while he waits at home, it seems pretty unreasonable to keep him locked up while the extradition proceedings are determined.

    He is an internationally recognizable figure with limited means of getting anywhere. Some people have been watching too many James Bond movies. Some passports and a nickname aren’t going to get him to Germany.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Martin (9 comments) says:

    Of interest:

    a) MegaUpload were planning to disintermediate the record companies.
    https://plus.google.com/u/0/111314089359991626869/posts/HQJxDRiwAWq

    b) That high flying US lawyer was forced to withdraw from the case by his law firm(?)
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/46092573/U_S_lawyer_for_Megaupload_com_withdraws

    To quote @interactivemark “What I love about the #sopa shit: Banks? No need to regulate them. People downloading torrents of The Simpsons? Regulate the whole internet!”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    tristanb (735) Says:
    January 25th, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    I read the email. The media are really out to get this guy!

    I found the e-mail quite funny. How anyone could be initimidated by what was clearly intended as a joke is beyond me. The e-mail even states that he is kidding and he sincerely tries to make peace with his neighbours while using humour to deflate the situation. Sounds like a pretty easygoing person.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Pete George (22,761 comments) says:

    Weihana – I tend to agree. I’m thinking through this while discussing it.

    Lawyers – this is a case of international significance, so potentially there’s quite a bit of international spotlight on it. Inadvertantly or not, how much is that likely to influence the judge’s decision? A status quo decision to keep him locked up just in case something goes awry and it embarrasses our policing and judiciary?

    No matter what the risk it wouldn’t look good if he did manage to skip the country.

    Theoretically none of this should matter in the decision making but judges are human.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. KiwiGreg (3,169 comments) says:

    Unlike Komoriski who sounds like a complete arsehole.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Pete George (22,761 comments) says:

    I don’t think the email is very funny, in fact a bit stupid, a bit like joking about bombs in suitcases at the airport. Unusual people in unusual houses splashing heaps of wealth around generate rumour and suspicion as it is without needing to fuel it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Scott Chris (5,870 comments) says:

    F E Smith says:- “Delaying anything isn’t on anyone’s mind in cases like this- winning them is.”

    Makes sense. All the more reason not to see him as a flight risk.

    Personally I can’t see why he hasn’t been bailed as he is not dangerous in any way, and one would presume that the means of his effecting and sustaining his ‘flight’ have been taken from him.

    And it’s not like he’s the most inconspicuous fella to ever grace our shores, with that big frame and a German accent.

    Smacks of appeasement to a foreign overlord.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. F E Smith (3,301 comments) says:

    most of these arguments will fall into the category of “clutching at straws while drowning”.

    Not really.  The Judge should not grant an order unless he/she is satisfied that the requirements of the extradition treaty have been met.  This is not rubber-stamping we are talking about.

    Therefore, any challenge is not ‘clutching at straws’, but a proper argument.  I say that because if the lawyer argues something that is totally unsupportable at law, he/she will get roasted by the judge.  It just won’t happen, so if there is an argument, then it will be valid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Jesus Pete, you need to get out of Dunedin at bit, at least once …… imagine unusual people in unusual houses ..,gawd,.. and there’s even some in Auckland that are different colours,people that is !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Once upon atime they used to burn people like him at the stake, or use the old ducking chair,ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

    metcalp

    Yea, the hearing will be to prove the validity of the extradition and wether his arrest etc was lawful and whether NZ statutes were complied with on his arrest. No one mention proving the case in New Zealand. Not even the US can turn up with a piece of paper saying they want ‘metcalp’ for a trial and we hand him over without it being tested. Not yet anyway

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. F E Smith (3,301 comments) says:

    Not even the US can turn up with a piece of paper saying they want ‘metcalp’ for a trial and we hand him over without it being tested. Not yet anyway

    Something that does happen in the EU, however, with the European Arrest Warrant.  That is turning into a bit of a nightmare for the Poms, as many EU countries have criminal offences that would not qualify for extradition from the UK otherwise.  Worse, there are no checks on the use of the EAW for political (or career advancing) purposes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    # Pete George (12,150) Says:
    January 25th, 2012 at 4:05 pm

    I don’t think the email is very funny, in fact a bit stupid, a bit like joking about bombs in suitcases at the airport. Unusual people in unusual houses splashing heaps of wealth around generate rumour and suspicion as it is without needing to fuel it.

    If they can’t take a joke perhaps his neighbours should just mind their own business then.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. alex Masterley (1,490 comments) says:

    It will be interesting to see who gets the short straw on the bail appeal when it hits the High Court.
    Justice Laing would be a good choice!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. holysheet (264 comments) says:

    I have no concern one way or the other about him getting bail. The only good thing and what makes him different from that shit Ahmid zhouri is this one is not getting legal aid. Having all those millions in govt bonds is as good as a retainer as anyone can have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. RRM (9,428 comments) says:

    It’s amazing how a story about a fraudster will bring out the criminal-loving, soft-on-crime Right.

    Velcom to New Zealand prison, dirt bag. Just ask a guard if you need any more lube…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Pete George (12,150) Says:
    January 25th, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    I can’t help thinking there must be something big in this story we haven’t been told yet, something that justifies how it’s being dealt with.

    Of course, that’s what they want you to think. That’s why they went over the top with their raid to catch someone who probably can’t even run 100 metres. They could’ve simply knocked on his door but instead they launch a massive operation because the local authorities think they’re in a movie when they hear the letters “FBI” mentioned.

    It’s a publicity stunt. It’s like bringing a defendent into court shackled with soldiers pointing guns at him. You think any jury would acquit? They’ll think “wow he must be dangerous for all these measures to be put in place”. Same with this stunt. The public thinks “wow there must be something big going on for all those cops and helicopters”. Nevermind that he is merely a businessman who has been doing business for years and whose activities are out in the open. A man who appears to be doing the exact same thing as many other businesses where everyone else gets dealt with in civil court but for him it’s a big criminal operation.

    Whatever one thinks of Napster, Kazaa, Limewire, Megaupload etc. etc. there has never, to my knowledge, been the suggestion that the activity of these companies amounts to an organized criminal conspiracy. At most they have been sued in civil court and been shut down (sort of).

    Either Kim Dotcom organized people to upload illegal content and the FBI has proof of this (seems unlikely as it would be unnecessary and foolish for Dotcom to do so) or the authorities are upping the ante in their fight against online piracy by targeting a man who has an unconventional appearance and reputation in attempts to hoodwink a jury full of technologically illerate morons so that others who benefit from piracy will be scared off with the threat of long prison sentences.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Pete George,


    Theoretically none of this should matter in the decision making but judges are human.

    I think you’re probably right. The judge doesn’t want to be the one who let him get away. Hopefully for Dotcom higher courts can exercise a little more impartiality and objectivity. It would certainly be an injustice were he to remain locked up for months if not years while this case gets sorted out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Pete George (22,761 comments) says:

    Weihana – not ‘wow’ in this for me, just seeing how it plays out.

    I don’t support illegal downloading or breaking the law just because you can, but if it turns out we’ve been used (with too much relish) to clobber a scapegoat just for enabling serial breaches of copyright then I’ll be very disappointed. And if so it may not be all the fault of our police, I presume they have to trust what they are given to work on by the US law enforcers.

    It’s likely to take quite a bit of time to find out all they let us know.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. F E Smith (3,301 comments) says:

    the criminal-loving, soft-on-crime Right.

    rrm, please tell me that is a joke?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Pete George,

    While I agree with your point that violations of the law shouldn’t be tolerated merely because it is easy to break the law, the law nevertheless has to be realistic and in the interests of society at large. I think the notion of copyrights being equivalent to real property is flawed.

    The purpose of copyright is to protect the incentive to create valued artistic works and I think the last decade has proved that this can be achieved in spite of online sharing. While it is debateable how much revenue has in actuality been lost by media companies it seems to me that any such lost revenue is not necessary to support creativity and the entertainment industry. Moreover, society is better off having access to more free content as opposed to giving large corporations more money. Any money saved by the consumer can then be directed towards more enterprising endeavours rather than simply going to support a monopoly created by copyright.

    Of course this could all just be a rationalization of my desire to have something for nothing. This in turn may bias me to distrust the American authorities even if, in reality, they have a very strong case against Dotcom. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Weihana (1,305) Says:
    January 25th, 2012 at 4:43 pm

    “illerate”

    Heh.. What a word for me to spell wrong! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Nostalgia-NZ (4,898 comments) says:

    Good old thickstick NZ. A flipping flight risk. By most estimates they’ve confisicated $150 million from him. I know some people get nervous and twitchy but a totally practical situation might be let him go and keep the $150 million, or as much of it that the states will ‘give’ back.
    This underlying suspicion of what ‘might be going on’ is that some are ‘impressed’ by the performance of ‘catching’ dotcom and think therefore that there is a bigger picture. Don’t know that there is a definition in law for that. We’ve had a bs ‘capture’ timed to let the FBI get their jolly’s off and been fed a lot of crap along with the exotic word ‘racketeering.’ As for the process of extraditiion being straight forward does anybody see the crisis here that any extradiction order can hold precedence of the rights of a nz resident. All the familiar words used ‘flight risk, loaded firearms, Grand Jury’ when what they really mean is bend over and cop nz – we’re taking him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Bruce Hamilton (60 comments) says:

    My favorite part of the decision was the defense claim that the panic room was installed by the previous occupiers.

    Hell hath no fury like a woman with a deficient Christmas hamper.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. F E Smith (3,301 comments) says:

    Bruce,

    are you saying that it wasn’t installed by the previous occupier?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    https://plus.google.com/u/0/111314089359991626869/posts/HQJxDRiwAWq#111314089359991626869/posts/HQJxDRiwAWq

    The link above posted by Martin is abit of an eye opener. Cheers

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Bruce Hamilton (60 comments) says:

    F.E.Smith wrote

    “are you saying that it wasn’t installed by the previous occupier?”

    No, I’ve no idea who created the panic room, and it’s also possibly been upgraded by the current tenants.

    However, if true, the need for a panic room because of the threat of disaffected Chrisco clients with defective Christmas hampers assaulting the previous occupiers of the mansion appears somewhat paranoid and over-the-top.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Dave A (61 comments) says:

    It’s a publicity stunt. It’s like bringing a defendent into court shackled with soldiers pointing guns at him.

    Actually they did pull such a stunt.

    As the prosecution lawyer said they’d found a gun, in to the court melodramatically marched an officer bearing said weapon.

    The judge wasn’t fooled, and told him to get out of the courtroom, with the gun.

    With Mr Zaoui, he had helicopter escorts to his two years of illegal detention without charge or trial, at the end of which the SIS had to admit they were wrong about him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Bruce

    I’d have thought it was needed badly, have you ever seen a Chrisco hamper?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. F E Smith (3,301 comments) says:

    Bruce,

    then why use the word ‘claim’ when you surely mean ‘told the Court’? There is a real difference between the two ways of putting that.

    Dave A,

    was that stunt in the hearing under discussion?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Velcom to New Zealand prison, dirt bag. Just ask a guard if you need any more lube…

    Wow, so no trial then? Just lock the fat bastard up? Shit, just cause he’s suspected of ripping of your liberal mates in Hollywood doesnt mean he no longer has the right to a fair trial.

    I do find it weird though when you think this guy provided a resource for distributing pirated movies and Hollywood is all out for his head. Polanski on the other hand is unjustly hounded by the FBI…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Dave A (61 comments) says:

    was that stunt in the hearing under discussion?

    It was during the first court appearance, when tythe judge was in a filthy mood and even ordered the media out of the court

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    It was during the first court appearance………………..

    unbelievable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Sublime (41 comments) says:

    I wonder if John Grisham is preparing notes for his next effort? :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. F E Smith (3,301 comments) says:

    Gee, you guys have to be kidding me? Surely no prosecutor is that dumb..

    Oh, hold on, look who it is…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Nostalgia-NZ (4,898 comments) says:

    If the ‘gun’ was the big issue how come the 55 year old ‘security’ consultant or whatever his handle is, gets out on Police bond and dotcom, not charged with any firearm offence, and who, it can be assumed can’t be proven to own the ‘gun,’ or to be in its illicit poessession, is in part refused bail for an illegal item he may not even own. I’d like to know where Humphrey Bogart fits into this picture, was he downloaded illegally?
    The ‘retreat’ incidentally was built by dotcom, in the event of that there must be 1000s of Americans who should also be refused bail for racketeering. Somebody recently called dotcom a whoss for not fronting up to the OAS arriving on mass from the black clouds, that’s probably right and he should have had every confidence that he was not going to be shot, because the visit can’t have been serious or else the police would have simply knocked on the door and asked if dotcom was home, or contacted his lawyer even.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Viking2 (11,125 comments) says:

    FES, yes it was reported and the judge sent them out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Viking2 (11,125 comments) says:

    SKIP HOLLYWOOD MIDDLEMEN

    Though Megaupload has been around since 2005, lockers have only gone mainstream in the past year. Amazon.com Inc, Apple Inc and Google Inc all adopted some version of the technology that permits digital content to be uploaded for the purpose of backing up user data or making content available to multiple devices or outsiders.
    Ad Feedback

    For some content producers, the new avenues are a way to skip the middlemen in Hollywood and reach their fans directly.

    Last month, the comedian Louis C.K., complaining of a lack of royalties from conventional DVD sales, offered downloads of a one-man show for US$5 from his own website and sold more than US$1 million worth.

    Megaupload supporters in the past have included major recording artists, such as Macy Gray and Sean “Diddy” Combs, who lent their voices to a popular video touting Megaupload by name.

    Rapper Busta Rhymes signaled his support on Twitter even after the arrests last week, tweeting that Megaupload “could create the most powerful way 4 artist 2 get 90% off of every dollar despite the music being downloaded 4 free.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/6310342/Analysis-Megaupload-shutdown-unlikely-to-deter-piracy

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Bruce Hamilton (60 comments) says:

    F E Smith.

    Sorry my poor composition caused you concern, but life is too short to learn lawyer-speak. I realize owners of mansions may install panic room for tangible threats ( kidnapping, robbery, etc. ), but prefer the image of irate hamper owners. YMMV.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. RRM (9,428 comments) says:

    Bevan:

    Polanski on the other hand is unjustly hounded by the FBI…..

    Huh?

    I’ve never even mentioned Polanski on Kiwiblog. You must be thinking of some other leftie; fair enough I suppose we are all exactly the same…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    V2 has part of the answer, dotcom planed a separate company bypassing the middlemen, record companies etc, there would be a lot of wealthy people seriously pissed , it’s probably a case of who has the most to lose or follow the money. Another possibility is that it is election year in the states and old Barry relies on many liberal Hollywood names to promote his. What better way to show support for you liberal mates then sending the FBI half way across the world to kick the arse of someone ripping your lefty mates off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Tautaioleua (281 comments) says:

    According to the judge,

    “The real question though on the bail application is whether there is any incentive to flee the jurisdiction. Judge McNaughton said if he was able to flee to Germany, he would be safe from extradition because Germany does not have an extradition agreement with the US. He said Dotcom was a real flight risk with passports and bank accounts in different names.”

    I see nothing wrong with this reasoning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Easy fix

    He’s fitted with a bracelet, security guards are hired which he pays for, been done before.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    I’ve never even mentioned Polanski on Kiwiblog.

    Calm down princess, I was talking about ‘Hollywood’ going after Kim DotCom.

    And get your hand off it – not everything is about you :-P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. BlueDevil (92 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay (1,915) Says:
    January 25th, 2012 at 5:59 pm

    https://plus.google.com/u/0/111314089359991626869/posts/HQJxDRiwAWq#111314089359991626869/posts/HQJxDRiwAWq

    The link above posted by Martin is abit of an eye opener. Cheers

    This may be the real reason that bail was denied. It’s not about flight risk but about access to a computer.
    As ‘megabox’ doesn’t appear in the indicement, Mr Dotcom would be able to continue setting up this business if he was out on bail.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Viking2 (11,125 comments) says:

    Looks like FES is right about the Police Prosecutor. She certainly acts like a nasty piece. Wonder what her problem is?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10781206

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Viking2 (11,125 comments) says:

    BlueDevil (88) Says:
    January 25th, 2012 at 11:48 pm

    Pauleastbay (1,915) Says:
    January 25th, 2012 at 5:59 pm

    https://plus.google.com/u/0/111314089359991626869/posts/HQJxDRiwAWq#111314089359991626869/posts/HQJxDRiwAWq

    The link above posted by Martin is abit of an eye opener. Cheers

    Yep, like I said the studios and their minions are stuffed and the sooner they get over it the better. Generation C doesn’t give a shit about their control and they will go to download from those that live in their world.
    People have all sorts of tastes in music and films and will download them just as they do from youtube. If the “owners” want to cash in they had better streamline and cost cut their model or go broke.
    This is just replicating the car industry and many others that the Yanks used to control and lost in the 60′s and 70′s. Mostly the never learned why.
    Its the customer.
    When in business remember its not about you, its the customer and the competitor.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. ricknz (16 comments) says:

    . . . McNaughton said if he was able to flee to Germany, he would be safe from extradition because Germany does not have an extradition agreement with the US . . .

    Hope the judge wasn’t relying on the FBI or NZ prosecutor that there is no extradition agreement between Germany and the United States

    http://internationalextraditionblog.com/2011/04/28/germany-extradition-treaty-with-the-united-states/

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/71600.pdf

    I highly suspect the charges of money laundering and racketeering will be dropped for lack of evidence if they get him to the United States, but if he can’t defend himself who knows.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.