Dotcom loses at Supreme Court

March 21st, 2014 at 10:15 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Internet mogul has lost a major battle in his extradition case.

A judgment by the Supreme Court at Wellington today dismissed an appeal by Dotcom’s lawyers, arguing for access to all the FBI investigation files before his extradition hearing.

Dotcom, Finn Batato, Mathias Ortmann and Bram van der Kolk are defending charges of mass copyright infringement, online piracy, and money laundering.

Today’s judgment comes after the Court of Appeal reversed a decision by the District Court to allow Dotcom the documents.

The District Court decision had been upheld by the High Court, however Dotcom’s lawyers were granted leave to seek an appeal in the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeal reversed the decision.

“The District Court was wrong to order disclosure of the documents concerned,” Justice John McGrath said today.

“The appeal has been dismissed and costs have been reserved.”

The Supreme Court is the final say on matters of law, and it is worth remembering that this is primarily a legal issue, not a political issue. This should mean the extradition hearing will take place sooner rather than later.

Tags:

59 Responses to “Dotcom loses at Supreme Court”

  1. Manolo (13,754 comments) says:

    The obese German should get even closer to comrade Norman, in the faint hope the Greens gain political power and the communist ginga stops his extradition.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    I’m not religious but….

    *** HALLELUJAH!!! ***

    USA, he’s **all yours.**
    PLEASE take him away from here.
    PLEASE put him in a prison so far away that we NEVER hear about him again.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    That the decision was 4-1 with Elias dissenting should come as no surprise.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Reid (16,442 comments) says:

    That the decision was 4-1 with Elias dissenting should come as no surprise.

    The Sisterhood is alive and well, hating and wrecking long after Hulun departed, just as she always planned.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. kiwi in america (2,447 comments) says:

    Dotcon has been racking up huge legal bills what with Court of Appeal and Supreme Court appearances not to mention his recent gag order on the former security guard. With Auckland awash with unpaid and increasingly bolshie creditors all leaking like sieves to Whaleoil, the silks will soon be demanding their WIP bills be paid in full or representation will grind to a halt.

    Kim – there’s an NZ1 flight to LAX (in the company of the FBI) with your name written on it big guy. Get used to orange because your commie Green mate won’t ever be in a position to save your fat arse.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. peterwn (3,271 comments) says:

    Judgment is here:
    https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/dotcom-batato-ortmann-and-van-der-kolk-v-the-united-states-of-america/at_download/fileDecision

    Agree with Metcalfe that CJ’s dissent is no surprise. I do not see why the CJ’s dissent should be the first item in the judgment. The ‘lead’ judgment ie the one that gives the background and supports the majority view (generally co-authored) should be first. I always scroll down to that one first before seeing what the CJ has to say.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    Why are you sweating, Mr Dotcom?

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    The Supreme Court is the final say on matters of law, and it is worth remembering that this is primarily a legal issue, not a political issue.

    Well yes, with regard this particular issue (what information the US Govt must provide as a part of determining eligibility for surrender). But you might like to take note of CJ Elias says in her first paragraph:

    Although the final decision whether to surrender someone found to be eligible is a government decision, the question of eligibility for surrender is determined by judicial process and according to New Zealand law, as is made clear by both the Act and the extradition treaty between New Zealand and the requesting country in this case, the United States of America.

    Of course, that government decision also is bound by “the law”, in that the sorts of things that can be taken into account in deciding whether or not to extradite are set out in legislation. But just how the Minister takes them into account is then her/his business … so you can’t wish away the political aspect to the decision. And if you think that is bad, have a word to Tony Ryall before he quits, as it is his legislation that is being applied.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Nookin (3,341 comments) says:

    Don’t worry Kimmy, baby. Russel is on your side.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    The Supreme Court is the final say on matters of law

    Only for NZ’s political sycophants.
    NZ courts operate within a corrupt judicial system and NZ judges are not above committing fraud in court.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. david (2,557 comments) says:

    Re Elias dissenting opinion. Can someone with a better knowledge of these things advise if her critical interpretation of the Extradition Treaty is consistent with her liberal interpretation of that other Treaty?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. jaba (2,141 comments) says:

    tick tock tick tock ..

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    Reid,

    Elias is not a Helen Clark crony. She was appointed as Chief Justice in 1999 and her position owned more to her being Hugh Fletcher’s missus than anything else. By itself, this appointment was not a bad one as the Chief Justice was only the leading High Court judge. It was only when the Supreme Court was created that the Chief Justice was promoted because they didn’t have enough judges if they simply elevated the Court of Appeal en masse. The Clark government could have kibboshed her appointment then but they really didn’t have a good reason to.

    That reason would come later when she blabbed to a British select committee details about which she had refused to tell Helen Clark on the grounds of preserving Judicial Independence. There’s also the fact that she called Parliamentary sovereignty an untested theory.

    That she issues contrary opinions is not grounds for my low opinion of here; its just that her contrary opinions aren’t very good.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Rich Prick (1,700 comments) says:

    UglyTruth, care to provide some evidence of that rather serious allegation. Or are your feelings masquerading as fact?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    AG

    But just how the Minister takes them into account is then her/his business … so you can’t wish away the political aspect to the decision.

    No, it is not. The Minister has to follow certain procedures in making his decision. If he makes a political decision then he’s abusing the process.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Nostalgia-NZ (5,195 comments) says:

    It’s not actually just the CJ, it’s also Winkleman and David Harvey whose views pay consideration to the BORA. This majority decision still leaves a lot of doors open as to the process which must be followed right up to any decision by the then Immigration Minister. The irony is that the argument that it’s ‘trust us’ we have a case which we won’t reveal in full detail because of the complication and difficulty is revealed right up to the Supreme Court in a most complex and difficult way. An accuser should readily be able to provide their evidence, rather than argue that it’s not necessary or too difficult to do so – not a good day for the Supreme Court I’m afraid.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. stephieboy (3,028 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth, your not having sour grapes over the so far failed David Bain Compensation claim by chance .??
    A sane and sensible decision by the SC and a reminder of its virtues which would otherwise see the fake attempting to drag it out for years with Privy Council appeals.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. wikiriwhis business (3,996 comments) says:

    Our sovereignty is being lost. This will be open slather for the US to extradite anyone they see fit as they already do in the UK.

    Also, whatever Dotcom knows about J Key won’t come out in America where Key belongs in Wall St and no banker is ever prosecuted in the US any more. Key is sitting back relaxing.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Fentex (972 comments) says:

    I don’t know why it’s called a “major battle” for purposes of an extradition hearing.

    Having the U.S disclose all evidence regarding it’s intended prosecution of Dotcom is irrelevant for an extradition hearing – it would be of no use as it would have no place in an extradition hearing.

    Our extradition hearings (unless I am sorely misled) are solely about deciding if the request meets all the proper forms and standards and does not concern itself with the case behind the request.

    It’s what comes next, the political part – where it matters. DPF is wrong to imply this is solely a legal matter. It is not. A government surrendering a person under it’s protection (a primary purpose of governments existence) is always political.

    And in this case it is very explicitly political as the decision to extradite is solely a ministers to make. Our courts first ensure the request follows the proper forms but do not consider the case behind the request because it’s pointless to try the case here and then, and as another country is claiming an interest in doing so where ours hasn’t we can’t expect any case to be made to a reasonable standard in NZ anyway.

    New Zealand does not require a country requesting extradition to have a treaty with NZ, we don’t try and legislate trust in their justice system, we don’t try and predict the facts of requests before they occur. We explicitly make it the responsibility of the relevant minister to decide on our behalf that having made a proper request it should be satisfied.

    It is political.

    And for that reason Dotcom may have hoped that having all of the U.S’s evidence disclosed may have given him ammunition to make his extradition politically untenable. I personally find that unlikely but who knows – the idea that a smoking gun of quid pro quo between U.S politicians and media corporations exists that could discredit the request is not an impossible concept.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. alex Masterley (1,517 comments) says:

    What Elias says is nice AG but she was the dissenting judge.

    The commentariat may pore over Justice Ellias’ judgment but the real meat is in the Blanchard/McGrath judgment.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    How many extradition requests are made to New Zealand from foreign countries?

    Statistics for the last three years show that New Zealand has received 22 requests for extradition. Of this number, 7 individuals have been extradited from New Zealand.

    The remainder includes individuals currently contesting their extradition through the courts and situations where the individual has left New Zealand or the extradition request did not meet the requirements of the Extradition Act 1999.

    How many people has the Minister of Justice refused to extradite after the court has found them eligible for surrender?

    During the last three years the Minister of Justice has not refused to extradite anyone whom the court has found eligible to surrender.

    Judith Collins explains:

    For requests from most countries, once the court has determined an individual is eligible for surrender, the matter is referred to me, as Minister of Justice, for the final decision on the surrender. As Minister I decide whether to issue a surrender order, taking into account humanitarian considerations and other factors contained in the Extradition Act.

    Extradition requests made and refused

    This only covers the last three years with no Ministerial refusal to extradite. I don’t know how common it is or when an extradition was last refused by the Minister.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    Our sovereignty is being lost. This will be open slather for the US to extradite anyone they see fit as they already do in the UK.

    Which is exactly what our extradition arrangements were intended to do. The bonuses are that the US can’t extradite anybody to execute them and we can extradite anybody we see fit from the US.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    UglyTruth, care to provide some evidence of that rather serious allegation.

    Of course. The corruption derives from the Crown’s perverted description of the common law, aka the law of the land. Their description is that the common law is case law, ie historical legal precedent, while the historical description of common is law is essentially theistic. The historical description can be found in dictionaries of law and in the writings of writings of William Backstone, who is called a source of the common law because of his role in documenting it. One consequence of this corruption is the Crown’s failure to observe the natural rights described by Blackstone (natural rights are connected to the role of deity in law). The specific injury of natural rights arises from the Crown’s failure to recognize the the right of fair use of public property with regard to the licencing of use of public roads.

    Regarding my claim of judicial fraud, I witnesses a district court judge admit that he had committed fraud in relation to a matter of jurisdiction. District courts do not have universal jurisdiction, they only have personal jurisdiction aka jurisdiction in personam. I raised this issue with Judith Collins and she did not contest the fact that judicial fraud had occurred.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Fentex (972 comments) says:

    Our sovereignty is being lost. This will be open slather for the US to extradite anyone they see fit as they already do in the UK

    You are mistaken. Not about the UK – there the people have been betrayed by a government abandoning it’s duty and responsibility to protect them by legislating a right for other nations (i.e the U.S) to remove citizens on any pretext.

    But we haven’t. Putting the details of Dotcom aside, any extradition from NZ explicitly requires the agreement of a NZ minister who can refuse (it ain’t hard to find a danger of injustice in any extradition request if you look close enough). So unlike the UK our government cannot argue their hands are tied by law, they explicitly are not.

    Even in the UK political opposition can motivate finding ways to block unpopular extraditions (people who wonder what all this is about the UK may be interested in the details of the U.S’s request to extradite Gary McKinnon).

    Any extradition from NZ must be agreed to by our government and is a political act, though I imagine our record of past reluctance to refuse is likely to be argued a precedent for not doing so unless it’s really, really necessary.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    PG,

    The ground for which a minister can refuse to extradite are limited to stuff like refusal to wave the death penalty for the crime or sickness of the defendant.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Rick Rowling (813 comments) says:

    Maybe Dotcom’s lawyers stopped trying so hard when they realised that they weren’t going to get paid

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. cricko (330 comments) says:

    When Dotcom is extradited to face justice in the USA is he likely to be granted bail by a Federal Court ?
    or
    Will he be remanded in custody as a flight risk ?
    Anyone know ?

    If he is remanded in custody in the Downtown Correctional Facility in Manhattan his whining about his
    mattress being too thin is likely to fall on deaf ears.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    @Metcalph,

    No, it is not. The Minister has to follow certain procedures in making his decision. If he makes a political decision then he’s abusing the process.

    Yes. The Minister must follow certain procedures (and consider certain matters) in making her or his decision. That’s what I said. But there’s no “non-political” way for the Minister to do so. Here’s what s.30(3) states:

    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.

    Now, there’s been a lot of questions raised about the process followed by both the NZ and US authorities in investigating and arresting Dot Com. Are these questions serious enough to justify refusing extradition, on the grounds that the process that has been followed is a breach of the rule of law and so it would be an injustice to allow Dot Com to be sent to the US? Please make sure your answer makes no reference to anything that might smack of “a political decision”.

    (Oh, and incidentally, this also shows that your claim that “The ground for which a minister can refuse to extradite are limited to stuff like refusal to wave the death penalty for the crime or sickness of the defendant” doesn’t accurately reflect what the Extradition Act actually says.)

    @Pete George

    I don’t know how common it is or when an extradition was last refused by the Minister.

    Quite probably never. But when have we ever had an extradition case like that of Dot Com? So precedent isn’t particularly useful here, is it?

    If you could show that there was an earlier case “like” that of Dot Com, in which a Minister sent the accused overseas, then that would be something. Until then, not so much.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    What Elias says is nice AG but she was the dissenting judge.

    On the question of what information the US is required to give to NZ, yes. On the general application of the Extradition Act, not so much:

    Here’s McGrath and Blanchard (at para. 99)

    If the District Court determines that a requested person is eligible for surrender, the Minister must decide whether or not a person is to be surrendered to the requesting state.

    The situation is perfectly clear, for anyone with eyes to see it. The Courts make a preliminary legal assessment as to whether the grounds for surrendering a person for extradition are met. The Minister then makes a (restricted) political decision as to whether there are any relevant grounds for refusing to surrender the person. That’s the way the legislation was set up, and so any claims that “its just a judicial process” are plain wrong.

    If Judith Collins decides to surrender Dot Com, that will be a (partly) political decision (because she doesn’t think any of the problems in investigating and arresting him are bad enough not to). If someone else (and it will never be Russel Norman) thinks different, that also will be a (partly) political decision. There’s no point trying to wish this away … it’s how the law works (and is meant to work).

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    Who has Dotcom’s (German?) passport at the moment? Is he free to leave NZ? I suspect that if he has a chance to flee before extradition is executed, then he will do so. His modus operandi is to set up shop in some “mark” country, start a business that is destined to fail, have a giant spend-up financed by his creditors, then move on once the consequences catch up with him. The shame for NZ is that we let him do this to us in the first place. It shows a certain national naivety that we’d take in an international criminal and trickster and not expect him to try and fleece us. So shame on us, but also shame on the people who facilitated him as he fleeced us and perverted our democracy: Norman, Peters, Curran, Thompson, Bradbury, Kumar, Fisher, Harawira, and Banks.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Nostalgia-NZ (5,195 comments) says:

    From reading majority view Davidson came up short because the SP Court decided that the request for further information was ‘general.’ It looks like the Court have recognised a ‘right’ to seek specific and relevant evidence material to a specific extradition application, on that basis the majority view agrees with the CJ but not to the same extent. Davidson wasn’t able to pin point a single issue or issues which satisfied the Court that the material should be released, seems fair enough but equally so did the views of Harvey and Winkleman. Old school stuff here, no compromise or advice sent to a lower Court to reconsider but without knowing the submissions in detail it doesn’t look as though Davidson grasped that he was going to need to show something substantial in the ‘air of reality’ which The Court referred to a number of times. Looked at that way, the appeal could be classed as betting on the survival of a snow ball in hell and was decided on its merits. There’s plenty left that DC can and most likely will do and I doubt it will be before this election.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    The Courts make a preliminary legal assessment as to whether the grounds for surrendering a person for extradition are met.

    Before this can happen there has be a representation that the party concerned is a person, since the court in question only has personal jurisdiction. If this representation is false (i.e the party is not a person) the the proceedings are unlawful.

    To be clear, in this context a person is someone or something which owes as obligation of some kind to the Crown.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    @davidp – “I suspect that if he has a chance to flee before extradition is executed, then he will do so.”

    *Please* let that be so…….

    Is there a God out there?
    I don’t ask for much, God. I don’t ask for pay rises. I don’t ask for hot women.

    ** All I ask is that you get this Kim dot Com guy on a plane leaving New Zealand as soon as possible, and that he never returns here.** That is surely not too much to ask…….

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    Who has Dotcom’s (German?) passport at the moment? Is he free to leave NZ?

    The Police. He’s under arrest, free on bail, with regular reporting requirements. He’s not going nowhere ’till the US Marshalls come claim him.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Nick R (507 comments) says:

    I think it is charming that UglyTruth has his or her own private definition of what constitutes law in NZ. What a pity that nobody else agrees with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Nick R (507 comments) says:

    I have to agree with AG on the question of whether extradition is primarily a legal or political issue. The question of eligibility is legal. But the question of whether an eligible person is actually extradited is highly political. In effect, the Minister has the discretion to refuse to extradite an eligible person just because he or she feels like it. I’m not saying that extradition cases are actually treated that lightly – but they could be if the Minister wanted to. And if that ain’t political, I don’t know what is.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    @AG – “He’s not going nowhere ’till the US Marshalls come claim him.”

    Darn. World peace will come before that happens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. peterwn (3,271 comments) says:

    AG – If the extraditing nation’s corrections system for example is a replica of NZ’s correction system there would be no cause for the Minister to intervene. AFAIK Ministerial intervention is available if the accused risks death, whipping, caning, stoning, torture etc. Where such sentencing is a possibility, the Minister would seek an undertaking from the extraditing nation that such sentences would not apply and AFAIK nations such as USA, Singapore, etc will respect this. The ‘quality’ of the extraditing nation’s judicial system could presumably be at issue, but generally any nation with a reasonable ‘common law’ or ‘civil law’ judicial system would be OK. There would be no requirement for jury trials. Sharia Courts would presumably be unacceptable.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    I don’t know how common it is or when an extradition was last refused by the Minister.

    Quite probably never. But when have we ever had an extradition case like that of Dot Com? So precedent isn’t particularly useful here, is it?

    If you could show that there was an earlier case “like” that of Dot Com, in which a Minister sent the accused overseas, then that would be something. Until then, not so much.

    The Dotcom case is obviously extraordinary.

    I wanted to know if it was common, occasionally or rare for the Minister to refuse to extradite. Seemingly towards the latter.

    There will be a lot of attention and pressure in this case. Whichever way the Minister goes (we don’t know who it will be yet) it will no doubt be both a popular and unpopular decision, and will be praised and probably heavily criticised. It won’t be an easy decision = whether it’s a National or a Labour minister. It’s hard to guess what Judith Collins would do with this. What would Andrew Little do with it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Peter (1,712 comments) says:

    Appropriate

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. holysheet (385 comments) says:

    Cricko said
    “If he is remanded in custody in the Downtown Correctional Facility in Manhattan his whining about his
    mattress being too thin is likely to fall on deaf ears”

    More than likely the great german git will be the mattress. soon loose that flab being pounded night and day by all those bros in the same cell

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Barnsley Bill (983 comments) says:

    Spare a thought for the legion of lefty suckholes who have all made the journey to this countries biggest leaky home to feast on the fatty german sausage.
    Politicians.
    Journalists.
    Real estate agent bloggers.
    To a man (and woman) they have all thought they had found a massive and ongoing payday.
    The crushing disappointment and embarrassment must be unbearable.

    It is now looking more and more likely that this individual is going to be spending time in the big house.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. CharlieBrown (1,011 comments) says:

    Heres my theory of what someone could do.

    Couldn’t someone launch a private prosecution for money laundering against him? Money Laundering is an NZ crime, and if it succeeds he will get what I believe is a fair punishment in NZ. That would also invoke double jeopardy in the States which means that would only leave the copyright infringement charge which wouldn’t be a crime that he could get extradited on.

    The fact is, regardless of whether you like Dot Com or not, the charges laid against him are disgraceful, considering he has never lived in the US (I believe he hasn’t even set foot in the US but I may be wrong). If he has comited a crime then it is a crime in NZ and he should be tried in NZ.

    I’m fairly confident that the money laundering charges won’t stand in the US but the copyright ones will, which will make a farce of our justice system. Especially considering his prison sentence in the US for copyright crimes will be probably more severe than our murder sentences.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Paulus (2,626 comments) says:

    DotCrim has Finnish citizenship to so he probably has a Finnish Passport.
    He was born there.

    I wonder whether he has paid the IRD and ACC bills for his staff (and ex) wages ?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. holysheet (385 comments) says:

    What planet are you from charlie brown?

    Why would we want to keep the fat kraut here at the expense of the long suffering kiwi taxpayer? If the yanks want him then let them have him. Good bloody riddance.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    CharlieBrown (766 comments) says:
    March 21st, 2014 at 1:38 pm

    The fact is, regardless of whether you like Dot Com or not, the charges laid against him are disgraceful, considering he has never lived in the US (I believe he hasn’t even set foot in the US but I may be wrong). If he has comited a crime then it is a crime in NZ and he should be tried in NZ.

    But the case centres on his business which was operating in the United States as the servers were located there. What I find questionable is the way a civil case has been dressed up as criminal. That inducement to copyright infringement, a civil law concept setting a dubious precedent against new information-sharing technologies, is criminal when you call it a “conspiracy” to induce copyright infringement.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Fentex (972 comments) says:

    To be clear, in this context a person is someone or something which owes as obligation of some kind to the Crown.

    Usually UT’s insistence on trying to insert antiquated definitions of law into discussion is irrelevant – but the relationship of a person to the crown can be, though isn’t in this case.

    Sometimes when someone is accused of a crime it can be relevant if they have a duty to the crown – for instance if you charge someone with treason it can only be true if they have a duty to whom they are said to betray, and visiting foreign nationals generally don’t – no matter what they have done. I cannot betray Japan no matter what other crime I might commit that cannot be one – unless I’m resident in Japan (as Dotcom is in New Zealand).

    It is a matter of logic, and settled precedent, that people resident in countries (implicitly accepting the protection and laws of that nation) owe duties to them.

    So although in the matter of extradition this is all entirely beside the point if it did become a sticking point whether or not Dotcom owes any duties to the NZ crown it will be decided he does because of his residency – for exactly the same reason the inverse, spying on him, was illegal.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Usually UT’s insistence on trying to insert antiquated definitions of law into discussion is irrelevant

    Thanks for the strawman, Fentex. The relevance was that it shows how DPF’s comment that “The Supreme Court is the final say on matters of law” is a fiction.

    It is a matter of logic, and settled precedent, that people resident in countries (implicitly accepting the protection and laws of that nation) owe duties to them.

    It is not a matter of logic, since residence and citizenship are different things. Can you identify any precedent which shows that residence implies accepting the protection and laws of a nation?

    Black’s dictionary of law describes residence as personal presence, but there is no reference to the acceptance of protection or laws.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Just get the good for nothing left-wing trouble-making slob out of this country . . . not before he turns feral on those he has donated money to, even if it has been repaid.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Nick R (507 comments) says:

    UT – Please stop referring to Black’s Law Dictionary as if it were holy writ or something. It’s just a textbook, and a foreign one at that. It isn’t binding on anyone, ever.

    There are lots of other legal textbooks. You can probably borrow them from libraries.

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

    UT: Surely if he is continually attempting to find ways to overthrow the democratically elected government of his host nation, not being a citizen, he must be deported. To this add his interfering in our judicial system also; he is neither use nor ornament, just a diseased blob (an oversize one) on the landscape and must go NOW!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. BeeJay (72 comments) says:

    All good comments, people. In summary: he’s a fat German, born in Finland, looks like Humpty Dumpty, friends with Banksy, Russell, the green Australian wanker currently having speech lessons so he can talk like us, Hone who needs a friend, any friend, Winnie because this is it for him, next stop the retirement home, and the rest of the tossers who have been queuing up to visit Lord Fatso. Even if we all put in for a false passport for the fat man he still won’t be able to leave the country. How could you disguise any person who looks like him? Oh well, we just have to put up with him a little longer until the Yanks come to take him away. At least he has still has one friend in CJ Sian Elias who he could call on if he needs some advice. Perhaps Hugh could get him a job moving timber, it looks like he could do with more exercise and physical activity! (Do they still make convicts break rocks in the US?)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Don’t forget the Lecher, he is a close ally of this obese sod . . . they have a lot in common, mainly being unwanted.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Fentex (972 comments) says:

    Thanks for the strawman

    I apologise for that. It was a pointless snipe and I generally consider it bad manners to write such worthless sentences. I don’t know why I did.

    It is not a matter of logic, since residence and citizenship are different things. Can you identify any precedent which shows that residence implies accepting the protection and laws of a nation?

    I did not mention citizenship where I spoke of residency because in general, and in Dotcoms particular case, it’s the relevant status.

    I did have a particular case in mind when I wrote that – an attempt by the British crown to prosecute a man for treason (why I used treason as an example) who was not a British subject but resident in a British territory at the time. In a brief search I couldn’t find an online reference to link to.

    Black’s dictionary of law describes residence as personal presence, but there is no reference to the acceptance of protection or laws.

    I don’t require Black’s dictionary agreement, nor would I expect a dictionary to contain an encyclopaedias or textbooks examination of history, philosophy and meaning much less a rigorous record of case history of the worlds courts.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Please stop referring to Black’s Law Dictionary as if it were holy writ or something.

    I quote from it because it’s convenient and because of the common elements of NZ & US law.

    It’s just a textbook, and a foreign one at that. It isn’t binding on anyone, ever.

    It is more than a textbook when it describes ideas that are relevant to the discussion. In these cases it is a source of ideas which are generally well regarded by jurists.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Surely if he is continually attempting to find ways to overthrow the democratically elected government of his host nation, not being a citizen, he must be deported.

    How many opposition MP’s are legal citizens, in the sense that they have applied for and been granted citizenship? Would you also call for their deportation?

    To this add his interfering in our judicial system

    Well, there is certainly cause for reform, and his history with fair use / copyright issues gives him some standing IMO.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    I apologise for that.

    No problem, I’m quite used to it in debate.

    I did not mention citizenship where I spoke of residency because in general, and in Dotcoms particular case, it’s the relevant status.

    Sure, but you described state protection, which is the essential element of citizenship. I’ve seen nothing which substantiates your assertion that residence implies state protection.

    I did have a particular case in mind when I wrote that – an attempt by the British crown to prosecute a man for treason (why I used treason as an example) who was not a British subject but resident in a British territory at the time.

    In your case the man was in a territorial area, which implies military involvement, typically some kind of protection is involved.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. OneTrack (3,089 comments) says:

    “That the decision was 4-1 with Elias dissenting should come as no surprise.”

    It doesn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Viking2 (11,467 comments) says:

    “Starting today, Gmail will always use an encrypted HTTPS connection when you check or send email.

    “Today’s change means that no one can listen in on your messages as they go back and forth between you and Gmail’s servers — no matter if you’re using public WiFi or logging in from your computer, phone or tablet.” Google has already begun scrambling most of the traffic at its websites as technology firms grapple with moves by US intelligence agencies to spy on what people are doing and sharing online.

    “Unfortunately, this is a case of an American internet company having to beef up security because of attacks by its own government,” Hall said,

    while adding that it could be positive for people living in authoritarian regimes.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/technology/google-encrypts-gmail-to-thwart-spies/story-e6frgakx-1226860948036

    So even the yanks are getting pissed at surveillance that NSA represents.

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