Would Labour and Greens over-rule the court for Kim Dotcom?

February 11th, 2014 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar

Patrick Gower writes:

So now it is becoming clear why wants a change of Government so badly – and the could stop his extradition.

Yes, it is that simple: a Labour/Green Government could save Dotcom’s bacon.

Because under the Extradition Act, the Government of the day’s Justice Minister has the final say on whether someone stays or goes.

It doesn’t matter what the courts find, the Justice Minister can stop one “for any reason”.

The Extradition Act 1999 says the Justice Minister can say no “for any other reason the Minister considers that the person should not be surrendered”.

So Dotcom has a final get-out clause should he lose the extradition hearing.

I have consistently said that the decision on whether DotCom gets extradited should be made by the appropriate Judge, after hearing the evidence. The Minister should and must go along with the decision of the court. We head towards corruption if people can buy themselves a different decision.

Yesterday, we asked David Cunliffe and Russel Norman.

David Cunliffe:

3 News: In terms of Kim Dotcom – would you stop him being extradited?

Cunliffe: That’s in part a legal matter – and I would want to take some further briefing before I gave you a view on that.

3 News: You know it’s a Government that signs off an extradition – if it was a Labour Government – would Kim Dotcom have a chance that any court decision could be overturned?

Cunliffe: “I haven’t formed a view on that yet and I’d want to see more of the arguments. Prima Facie the current Government’s operation against Mr Dotcom appears to be outside the law in a number of respects my anticipation is that would make it quite difficult for an extradition to proceed but because that’s currently before the courts I don’t think that’s a matter politicians should be opining on”.

Russel Norman:

3 News: A Government of the day has to sign off on Kim Dotcom’s extradition – should the Government sign off on Dotcom’s extradition?

Norman: No. I’ve always said I don’t support the extradition process. I mean, I just don’t think it’s fair. I mean the fairness isn’t there – look at the way they have been acting illegally against him… They illegally raided his mansion, they illegally obtained evidence, they illegally gave the evidence to the U.S Government against the directions of a judge. That is not a lawful or fair process…The case that John Key has jacked up with the US Government I don’t think stands up.

3 News: So if the Greens were in power, would you fight to keep Kim Dotcom in New Zealand?

NormanYes. I think that we would

This is appalling. The only acceptable answer is that the decison is one for the courts to make, and we will not over-turn whatever decision they make.

Russel Norman has been out twice to meet Dotcom, and ask him to support the Greens instead of setting up his own political party. And in return he is offering that a Labour/Greens Government would basically corruptly over-turn the decision of the court in Dotcom’s favour. Cunliffe is not ruling out that he would also over-turn any court decision. We also learn Winston Peters has been out to meet DotCom multiple times.

I have no animosity towards Dotcom. He has been charged with serious criminal charges in the United States. The decision on whether the charges warrant extradition should be made by the relevant NZ Judge after a hearing, and if he is extradited the decision on his guilt or innocence is up to a US court. It shouldn’t be up to politicians, who are saying they will over-turn the courts in his favour at the same time as they meet him to discuss political strategy. That is pretty close to corruption.

Which brings me to the folly of Dotcom’s Internet Party – having a political movement behind him will obviously be another argument against extradition.

While it polled 0% in the first 3 News-Reid Research poll since it was named, when asked specifically, 1 in 5 voters said they would “consider” voting for it.

Most of its potential voters come from “undecideds” or Labour/Greens/NZ First – technically the Opposition.

But with Dotcom incredibly unlikely to make 5% or win an electorate seat, then this will be what’s called “wasted vote”, rather than change the Government.

And that favours one person – John Key.

It seems a bit of a selfish political own goal by Dotcom to me, and is why Russel Norman has been scurrying up to the mansion begging Dotcom not to stand.

But what a delicious irony: Kim Dotcom might actually help John Key win the 2014 election.

That would be irony.

Also Kim Dotcom has tweeted that if his party is not polling 5% by the time ballot papers are printed, he’ll scrap the party and endorse another party. Wonder which party? Maybe the very same party that is promising not to extradite him! So much for one law for all.

Tags: , ,

110 Responses to “Would Labour and Greens over-rule the court for Kim Dotcom?”

  1. burt (7,992 comments) says:

    Kim Dotcom initially said NZ needed better leaders that were not self serving …. Supporting a government that is prepared to overrule a court for him … is that self serving Mr Dotcom ?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Keeping Stock (10,168 comments) says:

    I blogged about this story this morning. Once again, the blogs have managed to stop the story flying under the radar, and the MSM is now reporting it.

    Kudos to Patrick Gower for getting the quotes from the respective leaders, even though David “Yeah Nah” Cunliffe is now backing away from what he told Gower yesterday at a furious rate of knots.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Nookin (3,178 comments) says:

    Why is it that not one single person in the news media has the guts to front up to Norman and ask him to substantiate the allegation that John Key has conspired with FBI to fabricate false charges against Dotcom. He gets an armchair ride. He is constantly making snide little jibes which he knows that he cannot substantiate. He also knows that he is not going to be taken to task for them. Cunliffe may be an idiot (a tricky one all the same) but I regard Norman as one of the most devious politicians around and trust him as much as I would trust Peters

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 55 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Duxton (589 comments) says:

    “Also Kim Dotcom has tweeted that if his party is not polling 5% by the time ballot papers are printed, he’ll scrap the party and endorse another party.”

    Then clearly we need to get them over that magic 5% in opinion polls :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. tas (596 comments) says:

    At least Norman is clear about his position, unlike Cunliffe. Cunliffe’s position probably depends on what the polls and focus groups tell him closer to decision time.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Auberon (873 comments) says:

    You know, I had no idea Kim Dotcom was interested in horse racing.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Joanne (177 comments) says:

    This is exactly what infuriates me. Our friggin opposition leaders are so gutless, so weak that Dotcom, who is a convicted fraudster, can buy them off. Are they that friggin desperate for power. Do they hate JK that much that they are prepared to make such a foolish decision as to keep Dotcom here IF the Courts say he must go.

    They are so stupid they don’t see how Dotcom is making them look like pathetic fools. Anyone else with half a brain can see it.

    If Dotcom is innocent, then why does it not go and defend himself?

    Cunliffe/Norman would turn us into a 3rd world country because they are totally ignorant on how to run a economy.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 47 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. dime (9,655 comments) says:

    LMAO how corrupt are the greens!!!

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    The sooner this obese criminal is on a flight to the States, never to return, the better. He is obviously going to fund the Labour/Greens, they are both short on the readies . . . the line-up of both don’t have any bucks, after all, they are failed academics, socialists, and unionists, worth nothing. So once he funds them he will want some return on investment, and he will screw them well and good, hurting the whole country.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Pete George (23,292 comments) says:

    Winston Peters accused National of a lack of transparency today.

    What we should have is full transparency regarding meetings, arrangements, donations and anything else related to any dealings between Norman and Dotcom, and Peters and Dotcom, and Labour and Dotcom.

    If they form the next Government anything they do regarding Dotcom is severely compromised.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. safesally (47 comments) says:

    Of course it would be corruption by the greens and if anyone thinks labour won’t be at that particular trough you are dreaming.
    I fear for good New Zealanders if that crowd of corrupt creeps gain power. Helen Clarks lot are looking good about now.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Joanne (177 comments) says:

    Norman is so cosy with Dotcom he met him twice that we know of and advised him not to start the party, we are told. Does it not reek of corruption when he then turns around and says he would keep him here if the Courts rule otherwise.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Manolo (13,514 comments) says:

    The Luddite Norman is not only a communist, but a corrupt one.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. burt (7,992 comments) says:

    So … The Internet Party is starting to look like a Trojan Horse for a new state run monopoly ‘KiwiInternet’.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. burt (7,992 comments) says:

    tas

    At least Norman is clear about his position, unlike Cunliffe. Cunliffe’s position probably depends on what the polls and focus groups tell him closer to decision time.

    Yes he’s clear – he can be bought shamelessly ….

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Joanne (177 comments) says:

    Manolo

    You are right. There is no other way to describe Norman suggestion as corrupt.

    Do we need to get Judith Collins and Chris Finlayson to give those two a lesson on Dicey’s Rule of Law.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. kowtow (7,919 comments) says:

    Who let him in in the first place?

    He had a conviction but he had money.

    The whole political class is shot through.

    Parliament is now voting to over ride private property rights in the name of the health nazis.

    The whole thing is fucked up and corrupt, morally if not financially.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Inky_the_Red (744 comments) says:

    It does seem that Gower made it up

    http://publicaddress.net/hardnews/the-uses-of-dotcom/

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 24 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Psycho Milt (2,363 comments) says:

    The only acceptable answer is that the decison is one for the courts to make, and we will not over-turn whatever decision they make.

    Suggest you go and read this. It points out that the decision is not for the courts to make – that the Act specifically makes it the Minister’s decision and that the Minister can refuse extradition for any reason. Norman shouldn’t be saying he’s already made his mind up if there’s even a slight possibility of him being the Minister in question, but it’s highly unlikely he would be.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. davidp (3,556 comments) says:

    Dotcom is a serial international shyster. He moves to a country, sets up some dodgy business, fails to pay his staff and contractors, and commits fraud or insider trading or whatever he feels he can get away with. While he is doing this he lives the high life and spends a huge amount on self promotion. Sooner or later it all comes crashing down and he flees the country to find another target country.

    It is disturbing just how easy a mark NZ turned out to be. People should shun this convicted criminal with a record of ripping off the people who work for him. Instead, he has the media and politicians queueing up to work for him. Norman, Peters, and Shearer spent half their parliamentary question time working on Dotcom’s behalf last year. They visit him at his mansion like medieval peasants granted an audience with their feudal lord. Norman is happy to corrupt NZ’s legal system if it saves his criminal mate. Fisher and Thompson are probably the worst offenders in the media. Everyone involved with the Dotcom Party is a disgrace, especially Bradbury and Thompson.

    If these people have been doing Dotcom’s bidding for money (or, in Bradbury’s case a new Apple computer) then they deserve to have their corruption exposed and be condemned for it. However I suspect that some of them are just useful idiots who’ll follow anyone with a big house and an anti-authority attitude. When Dotcom has fled NZ to find his next target, then we’ll be left to sort out the damage. And we’ll know who to blame.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Pete George (23,292 comments) says:

    Inky_the_Red – Gower made what up? He has provided quotes, they haven’t been disputed by Norman or Cunliffe as far as I’m aware.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. AG (1,797 comments) says:

    This is appalling. The only acceptable answer is that the decison is one for the courts to make, and we will not over-turn whatever decision they make.

    Huh?

    Here’s what the Extradition Act 1999 says (s. 30(3))


    The Minister may determine that the person is not to be surrendered if—

    (e) for any other reason the Minister considers that the person should not be surrendered.

    In other words, the governing legislation specifically requires that the Minister consider whether there are reasons to “overturn” the court’s decision on extradition. Are you really saying that Labour and the Greens should ignore what the law actually says, and not do this? Note also that any illegalities involved in arresting/investigating Dotcom aren’t an issue that the Courts consider when deciding whether or not extradition is warranted – all they look at is whether there is a request for extradition and whether the alleged offence actually is one that extradition applies to (as well as checking that the person won’t be tortured or the like in the country they’ll be sent to). So you can’t say that “the courts should decide whether flaws in the process mean extradition shouldn’t happen”, because the courts don’t have the power to say this under the Act.

    Also, if you really think that the law should remove all discretion when it comes to extradition – that “The Minister should and must go along with the decision of the court” – you should have a word with the Government that passed the Extradition Act back in 1999. The relevant Minister in charge of its passage was one Tony Ryall.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Pete George (23,292 comments) says:

    It points out that the decision is not for the courts to make – that the Act specifically makes it the Minister’s decision and that the Minister can refuse extradition for any reason.

    The Minister can make a decision, but only after the court has made a decision. And then the Minister would only override the court decision in extraordinary circumstances.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Psycho Milt (2,363 comments) says:

    The Minister can make a decision, but only after the court has made a decision. And then the Minister would only override the court decision in extraordinary circumstances.

    Or the short version: “Why yes, you’re right, Psycho Milt.”

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Pete George (23,292 comments) says:

    Not exactly. The decision is for the courts to make, you said “the decision is not for the courts to make”. Then the Minister should consider whether to overturn this decision.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Dave_1924 (97 comments) says:

    So people are pointing out what the Act says – fair enough there is a final recourse to the best judgement of the minister of the day. Doubtless there are good reasons for that…

    Here is my view. IF the Courts rule the extradition request from the US Government is valid and that KDC should be extradited to the US to face charges related to the business practices of Mega Upload [or what ever the original, in the gun website and related cloud storage service was called] then the Minister of the day SHOULD not intervene and he should go to the US to face their court system.

    People can defend the Labour/Green hints or out right statement [Norman as quoted] that they would over turn a Court ruling, all they like BUT it is not a good precedent to over rule a valid extradition ruling just because the subject of the extradition hates your political foe.

    It would SMELL deeply of CRONYISM and CORRUPTION if a Labour lead government over ruled a court approve extradition of KDC…. the only question that would need to be asked is “Where did the donations come from??”

    KDC is convicted fraudster in his home country and in my view was not a suitable person to let in to the country in the first place, HOWEVER if a judge rules against the US Extradition request I am happy for him to stay. Leave it to the Judicial branch and keep the politcos out of it…

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Tom Jackson (2,486 comments) says:

    So far every NZer that has attempted to cross Dotcom, has ended up losing and looking more bent than Dotcom.

    He plays to win and is not to be fucked with.

    I can’t say I care much, but the armed raid on his mansion displayed such poor judgement (and after the Ruatoki debacle as well), that the govt might as well give up.

    You cannot win in the court of public opinion when your first move was to terrorise a man’s family with helicopters and automatic weapons.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 26 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Tom Jackson (2,486 comments) says:

    Here is my view. IF the Courts rule the extradition request from the US Government is valid and that KDC should be extradited to the US to face charges related to the business practices of Mega Upload [or what ever the original, in the gun website and related cloud storage service was called] then the Minister of the day SHOULD not intervene and he should go to the US to face their court system.

    Why? The US has a bent government that has violated its own constitution when it comes to the internet (specifically the 5th Amendment).

    We know that they bulk store people’s private information to snoop on. We know that the system has been used for corporate espionage. We know that our government and the US government have lied through their teeth about this. Every day more shit comes out and it gets worse and worse.

    Dotcom’s crime is to let people download copyrighted material from the internet. He’s harmed the balance sheet of a few Hollywood companies, whereas the people accusing him have violated the basic principles of liberal democracy.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Nookin (3,178 comments) says:

    AG
    You are of course quite correct in referring to the relevant provisions of the Act.

    The great concern here, however, is that we have a person who aspires to be Deputy Prime Minister committing his party, in advance, to a line of action after secret consultations with the person concerned, without the benefit of a reasoned outcome of an extradition hearing and focused almost exclusively on a politically motivated criticism of the current government. Certainly, there have been findings of illegality, some of which are still under appeal. I would not have thought, however, that a politician should make such a commitment on such limited and as yet unresolved grounds.

    It seems that Dr Norman is not remotely interested in the allegations against Dotcom. He has focused his entire reasoning on the government treatment of Dotcom and has drawn some inferences that certainly none of the published facts even remotely substantiate.

    If Norman were to be the minister dealing with such an application, it would be very hard for anyone to suggest that he makes his decision objectively, dispassionately and after taking into account all relevant circumstances and established facts. It is very difficult to escape the conclusion that there is a sleazy back room deal here and that the driving influence is a common dislike of USA and John Key.

    If he were to proceed along these lines then politics in New Zealand has dropped to an all-time low.
    Given Norman’s demands that Key sacks Banks, should he not be resigning himself

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    I have consistently said that the decision on whether DotCom gets extradited should be made by the appropriate Judge, after hearing the evidence. The Minister should and must go along with the decision of the court.

    That is simply not how extradition works. The role of the courts is very limited. There are things that the minister can look at that the courts cannot look at. Courts, for example, will not assess the risk of torture, or look at human rights in the Country seeking extradition. If North Korea applied for extradition, and it got before the Courts, as long as the formalities were adhered to, the Courts would say yes. Question about death penalty, fair trial and a whole bunch of other things are for the minister alone.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Fentex (909 comments) says:

    The only acceptable answer is that the decison is one for the courts to make, and we will not over-turn whatever decision they make.

    But it isn’t, we have legislation that makes it clear that it’s the justice ministers decision. One imagines that’s because extradition puts a person beyond NZ’s jurisdiction and protection, which means beyond our ability to protect, pardon or parole a person – and as a person can be guilty of a crime in law but pardoned due to exigent circumstances or protected from inhumane punishment or processes making the final extradition decision a political rather than legal one is similar to permitting a pardon or extending protection beyond our shores.

    I presume this post means DPF would support legislation to remove the justice ministers discretion, but that wouldn’t resolve the issue for any government could legislate to stop this instance. It isn’t much different from plenty of legislation governments make to over-turn the consequences of a law that displeases them.

    For instance recently our government has failed to uphold the law regarding the behaviour of the GCSB and police and instead chosen to legalise their behaviour. Someone who didn’t complain about that will find themselves without a principle to stand on complaining should another government do it for someone else.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Dave_1924 (97 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson – frankly the US is no more bent, to use your term, than China, the Russian Federation, Australia, Indonesia, the UK, France, Sweden, Norway – you name the country.

    My points are these:
    1) if I create something and I can legally protect it via patent, copyright or trademark and you wilfully take it or facilitate others taking it, without my permission or without a commercial agreement THEN you should face the force of the law. If I am a US citizen or Corporation I have every right to take you to court if I believe and can prove you have infringed my property rights.
    2) Politician should be extremely careful intervening in extradition proceedings, EVEN when they have the authority to do so as conferred by the relevant Act of Parliament. KDC is well capable of defending himself, the US is not going to water board him or torture him in another way, he is not mental or physically unwell, the US trial process is reasonable fair and full of safeguards via appeals etc. There is, in my view, no reason for a Minister of the day to over turn a court ordered extradition in KDC’s case

    Finally I find it amusing that, according to your view, no crime has occurred because its a Hollywood company that has possibly, to be proven in a court of course, suffered a loss. Seems the law should be flexible and not apply to individuals or companies who you think can tolerate a loss.

    And in closing before going to the Pub for quiz night ” whereas the people accusing him have violated the basic principles of liberal democracy”, the old saying “Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right” applies in spades…

    EDITED to correct some typos…

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. burt (7,992 comments) says:

    Graeme Edgeler

    Thanks for clearing that up. It makes sense that there is a ministerial decision/opportunity to address such matters.

    Which bring me to the same situation with immigration …. There may be all sorts of alarms and reasons not to allow somebody into NZ but the Labour party showed us how some applicants are more equal than others even when the SIS has advised of serious concerns… I’m fully confident that there is no problem with the integrity of our ministers and there is nothing to see here – Move on.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. AG (1,797 comments) says:

    If Norman were to be the minister dealing with such an application, it would be very hard for anyone to suggest that he makes his decision objectively, dispassionately and after taking into account all relevant circumstances and established facts.

    I agree. But the decision is made by the Minister of Justice. Even in some sort of a Labour/Green Government, Russel Norman will never be the Minister of Justice … so the criticism is a fairly limited one.

    Look – I don’t particularly like Dotcom, and it does strike me that he’s playing NZ for all he’s worth. But by the same token, do you think the US prosecution is “politics free”? So saying that this should be a “purely legal” process is a bit silly … without taking into account that the Extradition Act expressly says that the Minister is able to consider more than “the law” when deciding what to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. greenjacket (435 comments) says:

    So let’s get this right:
    Unsubstantiated claims that a wealthy US businessman supported National as their “bagman” = bad and a subversion of democracy in NZ.
    A rich foreigner supports Greens and Labour so as to prevent his extradition = no problemo.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Paulus (2,556 comments) says:

    Despite what the Cuntliffe says in a coalition you know who will wag the dog – or no power

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. burt (7,992 comments) says:

    greenjacket

    Yes… It’s different when the left do it ….

    It’s like secret trusts…. Winston constantly banged on about how bad they were – but his own one – that was different.
    It’s like undeclared donations… Winston showed us how to get away with that while complaining others were doing it.
    It’s like having property in a party super scheme – it was corrupt according to the Greens and people should have resigned because of it – then they quietly closed their own scheme down when people found out they were doing it too.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. davidp (3,556 comments) says:

    Graeme E>There are things that the minister can look at that the courts cannot look at.

    Do you think that it is proper that a minister or government should make a decision based on donations to the party? Or based on an extraditee agreeing to wind up a party that threatened to draw votes from the minister’s party? I can’t imagine that these were the factors considered proper when the act was drafted, and the fact that a law can be interpreted to allow corruption doesn’t mean that the corruption is okay.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Psycho Milt (2,363 comments) says:

    Not exactly. The decision is for the courts to make, you said “the decision is not for the courts to make”. Then the Minister should consider whether to overturn this decision.

    Er, no. The courts decide whether it’s a valid extradition request or not. The Minister doesn’t get to overturn the court’s decision and isn’t qualified to do so in any case. The decision on whether the person will actually be surrendered or not isn’t for the courts to make, therefore isn’t made by them, and therefore also doesn’t stand to be “overturned” by the Minister. It’s the Minister’s decision.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Psycho Milt (2,363 comments) says:

    Yes… It’s different when the left do it ….

    It’s different when the left do what? Has Dotcom been bunging Russel Norman anonymous donations with the expectation of a quid pro quo regarding his court case? I must have missed that one.

    Also, you seem to be labouring under the delusion that Winston is of the left. He’s old-school National.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. burt (7,992 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt

    Also, you seem to be labouring under the delusion that Winston is of the left. He’s old-school National.

    He was National at a time when National were more socialist than Labour. At that time in todays terms we would have called Labour hard right – right of ACT as they are today. Muldoon ( Winston’s idol) was more socialist than prob any politician in parliament today.

    Winston is neither left or right – he is self…… Winston First. The deeds I specifically refer to happened while he was supporting Labour – and he was assisted by Labour allowing the statute of limitations to expire before challenging him on the Owen Glenn or Vella Family debacles.

    The poor we poppet had to re-file his electoral returns and unlike Banks never stood accountable – thanks Clark ….

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Keeping Stock (10,168 comments) says:

    Pete George said

    Winston Peters accused National of a lack of transparency today.

    What we should have is full transparency regarding meetings, arrangements, donations and anything else related to any dealings between Norman and Dotcom, and Peters and Dotcom, and Labour and Dotcom.

    If they form the next Government anything they do regarding Dotcom is severely compromised.

    Winston Peters lecturing New Zealand about transparency is a bit like Hannibal Lechter cooking a vegetarian meal. How about some transparency about the $158,000 of donations you made Winston, or the scampi, or the Vela brothers’ helicopter or the Owen Glenn donation…

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    The Greens will keep the fat German here if he supports them. I imagine that also includes financial support.

    There is a word for that type of deal.

    That word is corruption.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. OneTrack (2,793 comments) says:

    Pyscho – “The Minister can make a decision, but only after the court has made a decision. And then the Minister would only override the court decision in extraordinary circumstances.

    Or the short version: “Why yes, you’re right, Psycho Milt.””

    So why the hell are we wasting valuable time and money in a court case which obviously has no point – the minister decides anyway. Well shutdown the court case and get on with it then.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. AG (1,797 comments) says:

    The poor we poppet had to re-file his electoral returns and unlike Banks never stood accountable – thanks Clark ….

    Huh?

    I know Helen Clark is the root of all evil, but exactly what are we “thanking” her for here?

    The reason Peters didn’t face any prosecution over his false electoral return (cf John Banks) was because of a time limit on prosecutions that was in the Electoral Act 1993 – a piece of legislation all parties in Parliament at the time voted for. In addition, Peters wouldn’t have faced charges … the party secretary for the NZ First Party would have.

    Further, when Peters was under police investigation for this matter, he was stood down as Foreign Minister – just like Banks has been by Key.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. burt (7,992 comments) says:

    AG

    was because of a time limit on prosecutions that was in the Electoral Act 1993

    Yes indeed … And when he started holding up his “NO” sign that time had not lapsed. By the time the inquiry started after about 4-6 months of Clark saying an inquiry wasn’t required because she ‘took the minister at his word’ – the time had lapsed. That is – he was investigated and stood down after it was too late ….

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. peterwn (3,207 comments) says:

    I suspect a Labour government will not over-rule any extradition order despite the Greens’ attitude. In the late 1990′s there was a German couple who were facing deportation for overstaying a visitors’ permit. Various people including Green candidates/ MP’s lobbied for the to remain. On his RNZ Saturday radio show Brian Edwards lambasted the National government’s stance that they had to go. When Labour got in, their supporters thought they would be able to stay, but Helec Clark was having none of it and they were deported. Brian Edwards was at that time constructively dismissed from his show, but Helen would not come to the rescue.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. burt (7,992 comments) says:

    OneTrack

    Well shutdown the court case and get on with it then.

    Yes, lets get directly to the bribery and corruption so we can fast track directly to the “Move on – not in the public interest”

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. labrator (1,846 comments) says:

    Russell Norman, the full and final arbiter of “fairness”TM. Where would my life be without the Greens telling everyone what their version of fairness is?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. mara (751 comments) says:

    Dot com scatters about political favours in the way that Santa comes down chimneys at Xmas. Since no little children are involved in elections, why is this fat Kraut fool being taken seriously?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. tuesday88 (11 comments) says:

    KDT is an obese, lying piece of scum who is a convicted criminal in other countries, who should be deported immediately. I dont care about his party or is dalliances with the left. It merely shows he likes manipulating people, because now any attempts to get him out of NZ will be “politically motivated” or some such garbage. I see his face on Orcon billboards and it makes me chuck. I think we should lobby Orcon to stop using his ugly face in advertising.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. AG (1,797 comments) says:

    Yes indeed … And when he started holding up his “NO” sign that time had not lapsed. By the time the inquiry started after about 4-6 months of Clark saying an inquiry wasn’t required because she ‘took the minister at his word’ – the time had lapsed. That is – he was investigated and stood down after it was too late ….

    And this failure of the Police to investigate is Helen Clark’s fault … how?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. alloytoo (463 comments) says:

    Labour and the Greens on sale now at MEGA

    #LabourforsaleMEGA
    #GreensforsaleMEGA

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Psycho Milt (2,363 comments) says:

    tuesday88: after we’ve deported the people you find annoying, can we deport the ones I find annoying? Or does it not work like that?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Keeping Stock (10,168 comments) says:

    @ alloytoo – pinched that, and posted it on Twitter and FB

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Ross Miller (1,679 comments) says:

    Graeme E … I am a tad surprised about the way you went in constructing your argument given that NZL doesn’t have an extradition treaty with North Korea.

    straw-man if ever I saw one.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    We better ship him off to the US now while they are still against restricting the dumping of pork! :)

    http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=e55865c7-0978-42e2-baf1-8060b3a3b2c6

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Fentex (909 comments) says:

    NZL doesn’t have an extradition treaty with North Korea.

    As a matter of law New Zealand does not require a country have a specific treaty with us to request an extradition, so picking any country is valid in illustrating the point.

    Not that a place as reprehensible as North Korea is required, the U.S.A on a matter subject to a federal death penalty would do just as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Pete George (23,292 comments) says:

    Does anyone know how many times other countries have tried to extradite, how often the court has supported their request and how many times the Minister of Justice has overruled?

    Are the discussions on what might happen based on precedents or are they theoretical?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,830 comments) says:

    Nowhere ib the plethora of comment on thisfat German prick can I find any indication of who let him in, despite his criminal convictions, in the first place.

    Please someone, help me out.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. sustainablenz (4 comments) says:

    One extra problem I have with Norman supposedly “cuddling up” to Dotcom is that Dotcom is the complete anathema to all that the Green Party stands for regarding sustainability.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    Here yah go Adolf:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom

    Note: “Schmitz changed his name to Dotcom in 2005 while living in Hong Kong where he set up Megaupload. He was granted permanent residence in New Zealand on 29 November 2010.[24] At the time his residency application was being considered, Dotcom had made charitable contributions in New Zealand and was planning a huge fireworks show for the city of Auckland at a cost of NZ$600,000.[25]”

    Our fukin lot let the useless fatarse in…. seduced no doubt by his bank balance. Key is about to reap what he has sown. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    A bit more of the saga….”While living in Hong Kong, Dotcom visited New Zealand for 10 days in December 2008 and again for two months from August 2009. On his 2009 visit, he bought 12 cars, valued at $3.2 million, and leased a helicopter on a stand-by basis.[36] He applied for residency, which was granted in November 2010. ”

    Can’t blame this embarrassment on Helen JohnKey! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Danny da Veto (3 comments) says:

    Reports that 1 in 5 would consider voting for Dotcom.

    http://www.3news.co.nz/One-in-five-would-consider-voting-for-Dotcom/tabid/423/articleID/331659/Default.aspx

    Of course Labour/Greens will jump in with support, anything for a vote and a chance of power and control of the purse strings.

    Watch these scum rats change tack as soon he is of no value to them.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    Metiria and Kim could hold a joint sausage-sizzle to raise funds for the final assault on fortress Key! :)

    Mind you they would have to restrain themselves so some saussies were still available for sale! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    Graeme E … I am a tad surprised about the way you went in constructing your argument given that NZL doesn’t have an extradition treaty with North Korea.

    straw-man if ever I saw one.

    I’m currently doing an extradition case. The applicant country is China. New Zealand does not have an extradition treaty with China. That hasn’t stopped them.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. burt (7,992 comments) says:

    Pete George

    That’s a good question. Is there precedent for a government going against a court ruling on the legality of the extradition. Furthermore, is there precedent for a government doing this for a coalition partner and/or a financial backer ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    without taking into account that the Extradition Act expressly says that the Minister is able to consider more than “the law” when deciding what to do.

    Except when it comes to the principles of “natural justice”? (Or does that only apply to compensation claims?)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. James Stephenson (2,087 comments) says:

    As I said earlier in GD and over at KS’s place: Just deport him back to Germany already.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    That’s a good question. Is there precedent for a government going against a court ruling on the legality of the extradition.

    Yes. The UK Government refused to extradite Gary McKinnon to the United States on computer charges after his case went all the way through the UK Courts as high as the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords (and briefly, the European Court of Human Rights).

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. burt (7,992 comments) says:

    So none in NZ then ?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. lolitasbrother (581 comments) says:

    fuck you hard dotcom.what you got for me, i see your dirty private price you diryty dfog

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. ex-golfer (155 comments) says:

    So lets look at the list of promises made by this clown and how many have happened:

    Free internet for everyone: Yeah…….nah
    New trans-pacific cable: Yeah…….nah
    Free party: Yeah…….nah
    Evidence against JK: Yeah……nah
    Political party: Yeah……..probably nah!

    Why does this fool suck so many people in? Oh yeah…..this is NZ…….the sheeple will follow.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. OneTrack (2,793 comments) says:

    “Why does this fool suck so many people in?”

    Ripped off songs and movies for FREE.
    Fireworks display for FREE.
    Icecreams for FREE.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Pete George (23,292 comments) says:

    Graeme – that’s one in the UK. Any here this century?

    How many extraditions are sought? How many does the court order?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    So none in NZ then?

    I imagine there are some. There are a few extraditions. But we hear of very few in the Media. I would think there were several applications each year, how many have you heard of over the last decade?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. mick buckley (9 comments) says:

    Adolf Finkelstein wanted to know “who let him in” to which the response was “he was granted permanent residence in New Zealand on 29 November 2010″ – i.e. by the current National Government.

    Dotcom has made public some of his legal team’s discoveries about the granting of residence.
    Initially, and unknown to Dotcom (he has said), the residence application was declined. If I remember correctly he said this was after the application had been looked at by the SIS. Later however this decision was reversed, and residence was granted. Dotcom says the timing of the reversal is revealing, being very soon after a visit by John Key to the US West Coast, the place where the Hollywood executives live.

    My take on it was Dotcom was implying he was let into NZ because the Hollywood bosses felt it would be easier to extradite him from here than from his previous place of residence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Nostalgia-NZ (5,027 comments) says:

    This is not really an argument about Dotcom, it’s about the possible use of Ministerial discretion in a case that may or may not result in an order for extradition. As we all know, any such order can be appealed but not all the matters on which the Minister might decide, one way or the other, would necessarily be known to the public. Despite the heading of DPF’s blog a Ministerial decision not to extradite would not be a Minister overriding a decision by the Courts, because the Minister might decide on issues that the Court were unable in Law to consider. I’m surprised that even Nookin has jumped to condemn an unknown situation which might not happen. But there you go.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Pete George (23,292 comments) says:

    Edge’s response raises something interesting – there’s very little public knowledge of extraditions generally. I’ve heard of very few apart from all the attention given to Dotcom’s. Are they common or rare? Does the Minister often make a different decision to the court, or rarely? I’m trying to find out more.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. thedavincimode (6,589 comments) says:

    Historically Liebour has been happy to sell NZ residence for cash and both Liebour and the melons were quite happy to pass legislation legitimising the theft of taxpayer money.

    Selling protection from extradition to a crook is no big deal in this context, so what is new here?

    Cunners and the aussie git are two dodgy slimey little cunts, but this is not new either.

    As the saying goes: “Move along people!”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. deadrightkev (327 comments) says:

    “We head towards corruption if people can buy themselves a different decision.”

    We head towards corruption? I think the Waitangi Tribunal is already there, has pitched a tent and is on its third or fourth set of children. What has National done about that? Oh that’s right, they have moved at break neck pace to make it worse.

    Sorry, a bit off topic but couldn’t resist.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. labrator (1,846 comments) says:

    Are they common or rare? Does the Minister often make a different decision to the court, or rarely? I’m trying to find out more.

    If the Ministry won’t tell you then sounds like the perfect use of an OIA. Would be nice if reporters did this kind of work although credit to Gower for finding out some interest opinions and making them public.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Nookin (3,178 comments) says:

    Nost.

    My objection, and it is a strong one, is that this is a ministerial decision that must be exercised by the minister according to ministerial protocols. I would expect the minister to take into account the court’s findings as to whether this is an extraditable offence, our obligations pursuant to the extradition agreement and other issues relevant to the issue. Whether dotcom likely to get a fair trial may be one of those issues.

    I do not expect an expectant minister to campaign on a platform that his political party would push to have the extradition turned down — particularly after the same expectant minister has just conferred with the subject and persuaded him to back off the politics to avoid splitting the vote.

    This is not a political issue. It might be in the states and, sadly, it is becoming one here much to the shame of the greens. You well know the consequential outrage because Collins was seen to have acted in a less than ministerial manner over the Binnie report. Imagine the outrage if, hypothetically, Binnie had gone the other way and a political party came to a tacit understanding with Bain that it would overturn an adverse report in return for political support.

    This is not Norman’s call. As AG said, he is unlikely to be minister of justice so that makes it even more improper for him to comment.

    His statement means that there can be no doubt what they discussed in return for dotcom’s retreat for politics.

    Inferentially it also seems that dotcom has imparted information relating to the proceedings against the crown in the expectation that Norman will use it to attack Key. Either that or Norman has made up the conspiracy allegation (my interpretation is that dotcom has made it up and convinced Norman who probably did not resist a great deal if at all

    Norman has negated a political threat. More than that, he now has an ally with whom he can share and espouse his loathing of Key and USA. Without any supporting evidence, he accuses Key of a conspiracy to level trumped up charges against his, now, mate.

    In a word, this whole thing stinks and Norman is coming out of it looking like a scheming charlatan.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    Does the Minister often make a different decision to the court, or rarely? I’m trying to find out more.

    The minister always makes a different decision from the Courts. They’re asking completely different questions.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Nookin (3,178 comments) says:

    A couple of further observations.

    The purpose of the Act is to enable NZ to give effect to obligations to countries with which we have extradition treaties.

    There must be compelling reasons to say “no”.

    Here is a headnote from a Court of Appeal case summarising the position.

    “Held, there was scope for MOJ to take humanitarian considerations into account; even where humanitarian considerations properly taken into account, they had to be compelling; MOJ not entitled to deny Republic of Poland ability to try B for offences committed within its territory on basis of human rights or humanitarian concerns unless they were sufficient to meet very high standard; overseas authority suggested standard should be whether B’s return to Poland would likely shock the conscience; standard imposed subject to terms of any relevant extradition treaty which might allow for less rigorous test; nothing in extradition treaty between Republic of Poland and NZ enabled requested state to deny request on basis of humanitarian or human rights concerns; to the extent extradition treaty inconsistent with EA, the extradition treaty prevailed; B’s ill health was not so serious so as to justify reversal of extradition order; any issues B might have about trial process and detention in Poland could be addressed through adequate remedial avenues; MOJ not obliged to take into account humanitarian concerns raised by B; appeal dismissed”

    Whatever anyone thinks of the USA, if a labour/green government declined extradition then, in the light of recent comments, it would damage our credibility significantly.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. thedavincimode (6,589 comments) says:

    They’re asking completely different questions.

    Judge: “Is there a case for extradition?”

    Norman/Cunny: “How much?”

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Nookin (3,178 comments) says:

    Pete

    The Zaoui (SP?) case is probably the most significant of recently litigated cases (before dotcom)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Samuel Smith (276 comments) says:

    Dotcom is innocent and the Government’s spy agency has apologised to him.

    All sensible political leaders would want Dotcom to live a fair and just life in New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Keeping Stock (10,168 comments) says:

    Dotcom is innocent and the Government’s spy agency has apologised to him.

    Two entirely disconnected issues Samuel. Dotcom is entitled to be considered innocent until he is proved guilty, but any failings by the GCSB are completely unrelated to the allegations against him, which are serious and substantial.

    Take your “I hate John Key” eye-patch off for half an hour, make yourself a cup of whatever takes your fancy, and read this from the first page to the last:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/documents/megaupload_indictment.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Nostalgia-NZ (5,027 comments) says:

    Yes Nookin it is not Norman’s call. It’s his risk (or potential gain) if he campaigns on the prospect of the Dotcom extradition. But it is part of the democratic process for Members of Parliament to express views, disquiet or opinions on matters of public interest – a long way from being able to act on them directly by vetoing a lawful direction by using a Ministerial power. I haven’t followed this but I am making the point about Ministerial discretion reaching a different decision, by considering different circumstances than a Judge might have. In the Dotcom case those different circumstances could be vast (excuse the pun). That said it’s healthy for politicians to be interested in matters such as this. I recall Dalziel rubber stamping an extradition that saw a young woman returned to Sri Lanka I think it was where he fears of being raped and assaulted were realised. I also recall Hide commenting that he’d wished he done more for Scott Watson.

    If there has been ‘scheming,’ it will no doubt come out and be considered as the use of tactics and strategy – nothing new there. As you point out in another post, humanitarian and civil rights may not bear critical weight (another unfortunate word there) on the decision regarding extradition. That said, and from a completely neutral view there is plenty to be concerned about in the actioning of the case against Dotcom that needs to be carefully considered, much of course that we don’t know about but which as you say, Dotcom may have revealed to Norman and others as is his right.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    This obese bastard must go . . . he is interfering in our political system, and that piece of s..t Norman should also go, after all he is not a Kiwi. Let Abbott have him, he may go with the tins of fruit we don’t want.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Smith: Get out and find a job, you are a bludger having no right to comment on anything . . . when did you last pay taxes?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. alex Masterley (1,498 comments) says:

    Samuel,
    I didn’t realise you were a jurist. seen all the evidence have you.
    Heard the arguments have you? Given a decision?
    Perhaps you could demonstrate to us how the charges against Dotcom, which appear to have been properly laid in the US and ceritified in accordance with the NZ-US extradition treaty do not support an application for extradition..

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Keeping Stock (10,168 comments) says:

    @ Nostalgia:

    3 News: So if the Greens were in power, would you fight to keep Kim Dotcom in New Zealand?

    Norman: Yes. I think that we would

    When a party leader makes a statement like that, it’s pretty safe to assume that this will be the Green Party’s intention. Whether it subsequently becomes a bottom line in coalition negotiations is another matter for another day. But the media need to as Russel Norman some searching questions about his role in all of this, and what, if any deals have been done with Dotcom, or what, if any promises have been made either way.

    The Greens claim to be the party of principle. Russel Norman’s secretive meetings with Dotcom, and his eagerness to overrule the Courts before any evidence has even been heard is anything but principled behaviour.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    On a positive note, at least this is one case where Norman won’t have to use the money printing press to pay for his promise

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Bogusnews (454 comments) says:

    Nookin:

    totally agree. I suspect Dotcom is playing the greens like a fiddle. In fact it would not surprise me at all if he never had any intention of setting up an Internet party (he couldn’t run for parliament as he isn’t a NZ resident). He knew that just the threat would frighten the greens and they would roll over.

    Frankly the Greens are once again a disgrace. The fact they are prepared to overturn the courts decision before apparently even knowing how they reach it is appalling.

    I’ve got to give him this though, KDC certainly knows how to hog the limelight. He’s playing the media like a fiddle.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Pete George (23,292 comments) says:

    And don’t forget that Winston Peters seems to be very mixed up in this too. He was in hypocrisy overdrive yesterday, questioning John Key’s lack of transparency while he refused to answer questions about his meetings with Dotcom.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Elaycee (4,332 comments) says:

    @Keeping Stock:

    There is also a 191 page Summary of Evidence against Megaupload et al (including Kim Schmitz aka Kim Tim Jim Vestor aka Kim Dotcom)? The link was contained in an NBR article last December.

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/doj-releases-new-fbi-evidence-and-lot-its-embarrassing-dotcom

    This requires something stronger than a cuppa…. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Paulus (2,556 comments) says:

    Simple Vote Labour Get Greens, and by that Kim Shit is safe and will become buy a Citizenship, along with Germany and Finland which he already has.
    Labour cannot defy the Greens to get Power.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. RRM (9,636 comments) says:

    Green Party of Aotearoa / New Zealand – looking after their rich prick mates.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Psycho Milt (2,363 comments) says:

    Whether it subsequently becomes a bottom line in coalition negotiations is another matter for another day.

    A day when we’ve all been taking really strong hallucenogenic drugs, perhaps?

    Frankly the Greens are once again a disgrace. The fact they are prepared to overturn the courts decision before apparently even knowing how they reach it is appalling.

    How many times do the lawyers on the thread have to point out that a Minister refusing extradition doesn’t “overturn a court’s decision” before it sinks in, I wonder?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. toad (3,672 comments) says:

    @Keeping Stock 7:31 am

    The Greens claim to be the party of principle. Russel Norman’s secretive meetings with Dotcom, and his eagerness to overrule the Courts before any evidence has even been heard is anything but principled behaviour.

    What secretive meetings? Surely you don’t expect Russel Norman to put out a media release every time he meets with anyone. He met with Dotcom just as he has met with thousands of other New Zealanders during his political career. When asked by the media about his meetings with Dotcom he (unlike Winston Peters, who wouldn’t confirm or deny meeting with Dotcom) was open about them and what was discussed.

    You might like to compare and contrast Russel Norman’s meetings with Dotcom with those of John Banks who tried to keep everything about them, including the “anonymous” donations, secret.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Nookin (3,178 comments) says:

    PM
    Exactly right about “overturning” in the strict legal sense. On the other hand, we have an agreement to extradite people in certain circumstances so that they can be tried for offences in the country seeking extradition. The Act has, as one of its objectives, the express objective of facilitating compliance with that obligation. As a back stop, in order to prevent circumstances which, in the words of the Court Of Appeal might “shock the conscience”, the minister can effectively veto the extradition.

    It does not matter what terminology is used. Refer to the head note that I pasted with my comment at 10:52 p.m. yesterday. The Court Of Appeal head note refers to the “reversal of extradition order”. This comes close to the notion of “overturning” to which academics take issue.

    There seems to be a very clear assumption that an order made will be carried out except in very compelling circumstances. The Court Of Appeal refers to circumstances that will shock the conscience. So, although in the strict legal sense the Minister is not overturning a decision of the court, the effect is pretty much the same.

    The minister’s enquiry goes beyond the issues before the court but if you look at the relevant section, there is still a very narrow focus and a need for something extraordinary.

    By making this a political issue as part of a party’s campaign policy in return for all the clout that the subject may offer, the Greens have demeaned the process and have gone a very long way to undermining any credibility that our extradition treaties may have. Call it the commodification of the right to stay in New Zealand. Stinks, in a word

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Nookin (3,178 comments) says:

    Toad

    On the other hand, it seems evident that Banks did not do dotcom’s bidding and earned his undying wrath.

    Russel has now publicly pledged his party’s support for the cause.

    You are right, though. Banks does not come out of this smelling of roses either. The Greens have demanded that he be sacked. Time for them to look in the mirror.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Barnsley Bill (982 comments) says:

    A plague on all their houses.
    I stopped supporting National when they rewarded Michael Cullens deliberate and spectacular acts of economic terrorism by giving him a fat job.
    My determination to not support them ever again was hardened when I realised that not only had Labour been allowed to set up a government in exile by filling the media, all govt departments and associated entities with fellow travellers but National lacked the stones to clean them all out.
    The Dotcom situation has hopefully demonstrated to the public that all the left parties and Peters will do anything to gain power and privilege.
    Anybody supporting Dotcom needs to take a good hard look at themselves.
    His file sharing business was illegal. He gathered vast sums of money by willfully facilitating the ripping off of software and music and movies, he profited from the file sharing of obscene material.
    There is no getting past this. Russel Norman saying that Dotcom is useful because he knows how to make jobs in an ICT industry is fucking bullshit. How many jobs have been lost because of illegal file sharing.
    Constantly blaming the govt because the arrest and interception in this country was bungled will NEVER be a valid excuse to brush his proven criminal activity aside.
    The trail of politicians making the trip to his house are doing this for one reason and one reason only. For personal gain. Be it electoral or financial it is utterly corrupt.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Psycho Milt (2,363 comments) says:

    There seems to be a very clear assumption that an order made will be carried out except in very compelling circumstances. The Court Of Appeal refers to circumstances that will shock the conscience.

    And Norman has made pretty clear that surrendering Dotcom would shock his conscience were he the Minister of Justice at the time, which is poor form for an aspiring cabinet minister but of little consequence given that he’s never going to be Minister of Justice.

    Anybody supporting Dotcom needs to take a good hard look at themselves.

    Meh. I lost any interest in helping protect media companies’ interests when they implemented region coding on DVDs. They’ve only behaved worse since then, so fuck ‘em.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Barnsley Bill (982 comments) says:

    It is okay to steal if you dont like the legal practices of the business you are stealing from? Hmmmmm.
    PM, I don’t like your attitude. So I am coming down to take your Rover, I shall put a diesel engine in it a Nissan badge on the front and paint it pink. Fair enough.
    Plus if you are having trouble mulitzoning a DVD player………………. Sigh.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Psycho Milt (2,363 comments) says:

    Plus if you are having trouble mulitzoning a DVD player………………. Sigh.

    I’ve got one for which the remote is lacking one of the buttons needed to enter the multizone code. Also, I had years of owning (note: owned shit that I paid good money for, not “stolen”) DVDs that I couldn’t play in various computers until VLC Player turned up. For a while we had one laptop set to the US region code, one to the Middle East one, one to NZ and any of the neighbours’ UK-coded ones I borrowed had to be played on the DVD player in the lounge. I swore at that point that no circle of hell was wretched enough to eternally house the motherfuckers who came up with that scam.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Barnsley Bill (982 comments) says:

    Despite the hearty mocking. I feel your pain.
    The fuckweasels at Noel Leeming Waipapa sold me the new whizz bang panasonic bluray dvd machine and expressly told me that it would be multizoned prior to picking it up.
    I got it home, plugged it in. No Multizoning. Called them and was informed that I would need to bring it in, pay 90 bucks and have it sent to a tech to be done.
    Piratebay is my new bestie.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. jackinabox (759 comments) says:

    “I also recall Hide commenting that he’d wished he done more for Scott Watson.”

    Did he say why he didn’t do more for Scott Watson?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.