Espiner on Dotcom

March 30th, 2014 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

writes:

It isn’t a crime to buy a copy of the autobiography of one of the 20th-century’s most monstrous figures, unless you live in France, Germany, Austria or Hungary – which ban the sale of Nazi memorabilia.

And there are legitimate scholarly reasons for owning a copy of Mein Kampf. No doubt the book is in most major libraries in New Zealand.

But let’s be honest. Owning a rare first edition personally signed by Herr Hitler and gifted to Hermann Esser, one of the founders of the hated and feared Third Reich, is just a little bit creepy.

Actually, given Dotcom’s German nationality, it’s more than creepy. It’s boorish, stupid, crude, and unthinkably insensitive. Most Germans would rather collect excrement than have anything to do with a regime they remain deeply ashamed of to this day.

This is very true.

But then, most Germans don’t hold multiple identities, flee criminal charges, make a fortune out of hosting a web site that enabled large-scale internet piracy, live a self-described lifestyle dedicated to “fast cars, hot girls, super-yachts, amazing parties and decadence” before buying their way into a foreign country, fighting extradition to the United States on counts of fraud and racketeering and deciding to set up a political party dedicated to bringing down the prime minister.

Colin forgot to mention and leaves scores of creditors out of pocket, has almost all his friends and staff turn on him, and faces a lawsuit for paying below the minimum wage.

 

Tags: ,

138 Responses to “Espiner on Dotcom”

  1. Viking2 (11,681 comments) says:

    Paulus (2,266 comments) says:
    March 30th, 2014 at 8:30 am

    In reading my neighbour’s Herald yesterday (they are away) I see the new Radio NZ wunderkind Guyon Espiner boasting about his Press Gallery hits on Bill English and his “total” dislike of John Key and anything to do with the National Party.
    I would have expected him to keep his mouth shut and breath through his nose, not opening it for people to see what a twat he is.
    And this already shows the left wing bias we know remains in the so called media.
    I would have though that Radio NZ would have been more circumspect in choosing their front line staff – but it suits their own fundamental political bias.

    Direct to you from General Debate at 8.30 this morning.

    Oh Dear. Now Espiner is some guru much like yesterday when KS decided that Armstrong is his now favoured commentator.

    Bagged the Deputy PM and Pm one day and now his is your next best friend. OMG

    The hysteria around all this is mind blowing. What are the Nats afraid of?

    We need to ask because there can be no other reason for all this hysteria.

    [DPF: Colin and Guyon are brothers, not the same person]

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    This obese criminal slug also interferes in our electoral process, abuses our legal system, and personally threatens our elected PM. He is a leech, unwanted, not needed, and aided by the envious left of society. He and Harawira are treasonous, dangerous mongrels; the German should take Hone along for the ride when he is finally tossed out to face charges of which he is guilty, in US.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Elaycee (4,425 comments) says:

    @Viking2 – You realise one refers to Colin Espiner and the other to his brother, Guyon Espiner?

    Nah – thought not….

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    Christ Trotter, over at the Daily Blog, writes:

    IT HAS TO BE FEAR. Nothing else adequately explains the near unanimity of the elites’ extreme reaction to the launch of Kim Dotcom’s Internet Party. The way that these elite fears are being expressed – through a combination of synchronized journalistic denigration and outright character assassination – should also give us pause. Such a sophisticated orchestration of hate should make us fearful too.

    It is completely bizarre, this attempt to whip up hatred of Kim Dotcom has all the hallmarks of an orchestrated PR campaign. So are all these journos and bloggers working for the FBI or the National Party?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 23 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Rich Prick (1,750 comments) says:

    I wonder if Kim has a penchant for being driven about sitting in the rear of Mercedes-Benz convertibles?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    So are all these journos and bloggers working for the FBI or the National Party?

    No, they’re just apologists for the conspiracy. The FBI has a history of criminal behaviour, and it’s criminal acts against Dotcom are consistent with the predatory behaviour of the RIAA. At the heart of the conspiracy is the persecution of people who engage in fair use of copyrighted works. Fair use does not result in any loss to the artist (or the RIAA).

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. OneTrack (3,372 comments) says:

    Yoza – “It is completely bizarre, this attempt to whip up hatred of Kim Dotcom has all the hallmarks of an orchestrated PR campaign.”

    No it doesnt. This is just a number of sleepwalkers in the media slowly waking up to a person facing extradition who is now trying to buy political favours in the left, and, apparently getting away with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Rich Prick (1,750 comments) says:

    OneTrack, too right. And we already know the Green’s have a Ministerial extradition veto up for sale, we just don’t know their price. It would be nice to know what one of those from the Greens goes for, transparency ‘n all.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    @Ugly:

    First, the summary of evidence against Dotcom alleges that he went WAY beyond “fair use”. Of course, that is for a jury to decide based on all the evidence (which hasn’t been put up by either side yet), but somehow you have already determined that it was fair use, case closed.

    Second, and this is the part that many Dotcom supporters deliberately overlook, the indictment against him and his associates goes far beyond copyright infringement. It includes serious racketeeting and money laundering charges. Of course, Dotcom & co are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but the indictment and summary of evidence lay out a pretty serious case for prosecution.

    Yet his supporters just want to give him a pass on that – nothing to see here, move along, just leave this poor persecuted hard-working multimillionaire business with prior fraud convictions and a complex web of trust, companies, offshore accounts, etc alone because …..??? You tell me.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Kiwi Dave (97 comments) says:

    UT
    It’s one thing to accuse the RIAA of predatory behaviour in general, another thing to accuse the FBI of criminality in general, but a quite different thing to suggest that KDC is merely engaged in fair use and innocent of the specific charges against him.

    One does not have to defend either the RIAA or the FBI to see that KDC is a dubious character subverting our democracy for his own ends, and that he might well have violated legal and reasonable standards of fair use.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Ed Snack (1,940 comments) says:

    Queenstfarmer, I think you should read up on prosecutorial abuse in the US. Regardless of KDC’s guilt or innocence, the filing of those racketeering and related charges are intended purely to give the prosecution leverage for a plea bargain. The charges have possible sentences of many tens of years, so the script goes, plead guilty to these lesser charges and get, say, 10 years, and we won’t press for a rest of your life sentence. Even if one is innocent, the risk lies entirely on your side, and as the prosecution in these sort of cases can pre-emptively tie up your entire wealth giving you no access to quality legal assistance, you’re on a hiding to nothing.

    There’s no way I’d ever want to be subject to US “justice”, it is the most corrupt in the so called civilised world, you’d have about as much chance of a fair verdict as you would in Russia. Thus I think KDC is actually wasting his time and money inNZ, he should be bundling and donating large sums to the Obama campaign vehicles, that seems to make one immune from prosecution in the US.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Scott1 (592 comments) says:

    Most of what I have seen of the evidence still leaves Dotcom with a straightforward defense that he was not actually the one breaking the law even though he was aware what was going on.

    It is tough to determine a principle here that would not mean that bitcoin traders or dual cassette manufacturers (excuse the dated example) or some other relatively innocent group would be criminals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    @Ed, you have concluded that the “racketeering and related charges are intended purely to give the prosecution leverage for a plea bargain”. No possibility that they could ever be true, according to you, just a sham by the FBI, case closed. Several problems with that:

    1. The indictment was by Grand Jury. So a jury of citizens has already found there is a foundation for the charges.

    2. The summary of evidence that has been released makes very interesting reading, including Dotcom’s own emails. They are very damning, but of course that is only the prosecution evidence and Dotcom & co will get the chance to respond.

    3. Dotcom has a top US lawyer. He is not some homeless guy assigned a 3rd rate duty lawyer who will cut any deal. Any misconduct by the prosecution will be seized on and completely wreck their case. In fact, they would already have applied to strike out the charges if it was remotely like you describe.

    Dotcom is fighting his extradition for a reason. He knows he is in legitimate, big trouble with the evidence against him.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    Scott1, yes that is a fair defence that he will get the chance to run. The prosecution will respond that Dotcom actively encouraged the illegal sharing etc (and Dotcom’s own emails support this). It will be one of many issues for the court and jury to decide on all the evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Nookin (3,571 comments) says:

    Yoza

    You are absolutely right. Criticism of the dot com party is motivated by fear. I am very seriously concerned that our entire political process and electoral system is going to be corrupted by a foreigner with a criminal background, facing serious criminal charges, and whose sole motivation appears to be hatred and revenge. You might think that that is perfectly all right but I do not.
    The Constitution of the Internet Party completely reinforces the view that this is a quest driven by self motivation and self-preservation and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any vision for this country. Dot-com has made his intentions and his modus operandi quite clear. He talks about conquest and destruction. His treatment of contractors and paid employees is appalling. His threats are more than evident (scroll through Whaleoil and listen to the man in person).

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    OneTrack (1,865 comments) says:
    March 30th, 2014 at 11:51 am

    This is just a number of sleepwalkers in the media slowly waking up to a person facing extradition …

    Spontaneously. En masse.

    queenstfarmer (674 comments) says:
    March 30th, 2014 at 12:01 pm
    @Ugly:

    First, the summary of evidence against Dotcom alleges that he went WAY beyond “fair use”. Of course, that is for a jury to decide based on all the evidence (which hasn’t been put up by either side yet), but somehow you have already determined that it was fair use, case closed.

    Yes, ‘the summary of evidence’ is all we have as the FBI refuses to release all the evidence to Dotcom’s legal defence. This smells.

    Second, and this is the part that many Dotcom supporters deliberately overlook, the indictment against him and his associates goes far beyond copyright infringement. It includes serious racketeeting and money laundering charges. Of course, Dotcom & co are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but the indictment and summary of evidence lay out a pretty serious case for prosecution.

    Again, only provided in a summary. What racketeering? If any country looks hypocritical squealing, “Racketeering!”, it has to be the US – home of the biggest rackets the planet has experienced. ‘Money Laundering’ could mean anything, most corporations appear to be involved in money laundering, I think they call it aggressive tax planning.

    Yet his supporters just want to give him a pass on that – nothing to see here, move along, just leave this poor persecuted hard-working multimillionaire business with prior fraud convictions and a complex web of trust, companies, offshore accounts, etc alone because …..???

    Immigration was well aware of his fraud convictions prior to his residency application.

    … a complex web of trust, companies, offshore accounts, etc …

    And Kim Dotcom is the only entity in New Zealand at which these two superfluous accusations could be levelled?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. mikenmild (12,402 comments) says:

    Yoza
    I wouldn’t get too hung up on the ‘summary’ of evidence. It’s an extradition; he doesn’t have to be tried here first – he will be sent to a country that we have an extradition agreement with. In other words, a country whose legal system we recognise as being of a similar standard to our own.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    Nookin (2,870 comments) says:
    March 30th, 2014 at 12:44 pm

    I am very seriously concerned that our entire political process and electoral system is going to be corrupted by a foreigner with a criminal background, …

    Our entire political process is corrupted by criminal foreigners, foreign financial institutions are the biggest threat to our system, not some minor internet baron.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    mikenmild (8,130 comments) says:
    March 30th, 2014 at 12:50 pm

    … a country whose legal system we recognise as being of a similar standard to our own.

    So a country that accepts the legitimacy of waterboarding is one that is similar to our standards?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    . I am very seriously concerned that our entire political process and electoral system is going to be corrupted by..

    self serving time servers like Winston who use our political system to ensure an income for themselves and sundry hangers on .

    National have nothing to fear from KDC, the left have plenty. If his asylum gets off the ground they will grab lots of young green voters who have nothing in common with Russell and his tired old lefty plodding.

    Labour are just soooooo fucked its unreal, I’ve never seen them this rooted ever, even when poor old Wallace Rowling was stuttering along as leader.

    End of the day KDC is a distraction nothing more, its just shows what a small immature wee place we are when someone like this can dominate the headlines , even with our sad wee immature media.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    @Yoza

    Yes, ‘the summary of evidence’ is all we have as the FBI refuses to release all the evidence to Dotcom’s legal defence. This smells.

    How? It’s no different from any other case in the history of NZ, Australia, UK, the US. The police file “information” that outlines the charges. All of the evidence is formally provided (and potentially challenged) in due course and in accordance with long-standing rules. Why do you want to make a special exception for Kim Dotcom?

    What racketeering?

    The racketeering described in the indictment, handed up by a Grand Jury. You obviously haven’t read the documents.

    ‘Money Laundering’ could mean anything

    No. There are specific criminal laws that Dotcom & Co are alleged to have violated.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. mikenmild (12,402 comments) says:

    Yes, the legal system of the United States is broadly comparable to our own. There is no reason to suppose Dotcom will not receive a fair trial there. What would be your alternative – tear up our extradition treaty with the US?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    mikenmild (8,131 comments) says:
    March 30th, 2014 at 12:58 pm

    Yes, the legal system of the United States is broadly comparable to our own.

    This is largely true, both systems seem to disproportionately target young coloured people from underprivileged backgrounds while vigorously defending the wealth and privilege of established elites.

    There is no reason to suppose Dotcom will not receive a fair trial there. What would be your alternative – tear up our extradition treaty with the US?

    It would make little difference, if anything this case has demonstrated the obsequious manner in which our public institutions react when confronted with demands from the US. I doubt the US would help nail one of its corporate elite on behalf of the New Zealand government the way the NZ security apparatus has gone after Dotcom on behalf of the US.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    It’s one thing to accuse the RIAA of predatory behaviour in general, another thing to accuse the FBI of criminality in general, but a quite different thing to suggest that KDC is merely engaged in fair use and innocent of the specific charges against him.

    Innocent until proven guilty, kiwi dave. The charges only apply to US persons.

    One does not have to defend either the RIAA or the FBI to see that KDC is a dubious character subverting our democracy for his own ends, and that he might well have violated legal and reasonable standards of fair use.

    “might well have” doesn’t mean “is guilty of”. The fact that Dotcom looks a bit dodgy doesn’t make the FBI/police raid legitimate.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    First, the summary of evidence against Dotcom alleges that he went WAY beyond “fair use”.

    Evidence doesn’t make allegations, people do that.

    Of course, that is for a jury to decide based on all the evidence (which hasn’t been put up by either side yet), but somehow you have already determined that it was fair use, case closed.

    No, I haven’t determined that. I’m presuming innocence because I haven’t seen evidence that he caused any loss to the copyright holders.

    Second, and this is the part that many Dotcom supporters deliberately overlook, the indictment against him and his associates goes far beyond copyright infringement. It includes serious racketeeting and money laundering charges.

    The way I read it the racketeering and money laundering charges are conditional on unfair use of copyrighted works.

    Of course, Dotcom & co are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but the indictment and summary of evidence lay out a pretty serious case for prosecution.

    Does the summary of evidence distinguish between fair use and any alleged unfair use?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    There is no reason to suppose Dotcom will not receive a fair trial there.

    The reason is that the US civil system (like the NZ civil system) does not recognize fair use of public property.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. bc (1,395 comments) says:

    Ye gods, another Dotcom post.
    I’m starting to wonder if National are starting to get worried about him. I wouldn’t have thought so, but how else to explain this obsession with him?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    how else to explain this obsession with him?

    Because the rabbit hole of fair use leads to the exposure of the corruption of the NZ judicial system.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    @Ugly

    I’m presuming innocence because I haven’t seen evidence that he caused any loss to the copyright holders.

    1. The indictment alleges loss, and the summary of evidence include prima facie evidence as to loss. As is standard in all such charges.

    2. Criminal guilt or innocence doesn’t depend on loss. You are confusing civil & criminal law.

    3. Regardless, proof & quantification of loss is always (and always has been) a matter determined at court based on all the evidence and the applicable laws. That requires a trial. Why do you want to make a special exception reversing that for Dotcom?

    Does the summary of evidence distinguish between fair use and any alleged unfair use?

    Oh, so that’s why you “haven’t seen evidence that he caused any loss” – you haven’t even read it :-) No, fair use is a defence, i.e. for the defendant to raise. The prosecution can’t raise potential defences on behalf of defendants. Only the defendant can.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. RightNow (7,015 comments) says:

    “I’m starting to wonder if National are starting to get worried about him. I wouldn’t have thought so, but how else to explain this obsession with him?”

    I know right? All those National MP’s traipsing up to Mega-Me’s lair in Coatesville…. those neocon Tories happily selling political favours to the rich white crook just to get into government. Of course if it was the other way round and it was parties from the left doing such a thing we should expect nobody to say anything about it?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Viking2 (11,681 comments) says:

    Viking2 (10,618 comments) says:
    March 30th, 2014 at 11:07 am

    Paulus (2,266 comments) says:
    March 30th, 2014 at 8:30 am

    In reading my neighbour’s Herald yesterday (they are away) I see the new Radio NZ wunderkind Guyon Espiner boasting about his Press Gallery hits on Bill English and his “total” dislike of John Key and anything to do with the National Party.
    I would have expected him to keep his mouth shut and breath through his nose, not opening it for people to see what a twat he is.
    And this already shows the left wing bias we know remains in the so called media.
    I would have though that Radio NZ would have been more circumspect in choosing their front line staff – but it suits their own fundamental political bias.

    Direct to you from General Debate at 8.30 this morning.

    Oh Dear. Now Espiner is some guru much like yesterday when KS decided that Armstrong is his now favoured commentator.

    Bagged the Deputy PM and Pm one day and now his is your next best friend. OMG

    The hysteria around all this is mind blowing. What are the Nats afraid of?

    We need to ask because there can be no other reason for all this hysteria.

    [DPF: Colin and Guyon are brothers, not the same person]

    OOPs. My mistake though to be fair one is as bad as the other. both lefty shills. Imagine sleeping with the enemy.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    Because the rabbit hole of fair use leads to the exposure of the corruption of the NZ judicial system.

    Hahahahahahahaha! Classic quote. The fair use doctrine of copyright law will expose our judicial system as corrupt! :-D

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Rich Prick (1,750 comments) says:

    “This is largely true, both systems seem to disproportionately target young coloured people from underprivileged backgrounds while vigorously defending the wealth and privilege of established elites.”

    OK, calling BS on that as one who works in both jurisdictions. It just happens to be a product of the numbers of those who offend. But notwithstanding that, I would have thought you’d be rejoicing in a wealthy and privileged German elite being indicated for his alleged crimes and extradited to stand trial for the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. RightNow (7,015 comments) says:

    Chris Trotter: “IT HAS TO BE FEAR. Nothing else adequately explains the near unanimity of the elites’ extreme reaction to the launch of Kim Dotcom’s Internet Party.”

    Is he suggesting sunlight is not to be shone in that particular corner? Why not? Transparency is a cornerstone of democracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. ShawnLH (6,693 comments) says:

    “Chris Trotter: “IT HAS TO BE FEAR. Nothing else adequately explains”

    Idiot.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Nostalgia-NZ (5,322 comments) says:

    There are certain things that Espiner seizes upon to build his ‘case’ against DC. The problem is all of those things were okay previously with the Government. The ‘conversation’ would probably be a lot more fruitful if those earlier events, accepted by the Government of the day, were left out. This ‘affair’ is turning into a shrill domestic argument with no restraint on where the next sentence or accusation might lead except to be further away from the point. Espiner also speaks about ‘most Germans,’ how would he know what most Germans would or wouldn’t do, and what value is the comparison anyway, other than to add to the volume away from the point. No where does Espiner, or any of the other frenetic chatter, point out what lawfully prevents the IP from existing or conducting it’s business according to the Law – instead he digs deep into a hole to exhume what this Government had previously put to rest. It may on the surface appear that DC is looking to avoid extradition but that was apparent anyway, there is more than a element of the black helicopters landing armed men beginning again – and in this instance, at least, with no apparent cause.

    Might be time for Bill English to tell the mocking birds to quieten down as he has an economy to keep running successfully, or that negative politics begets negative politics and the possibility of a public reaction.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    1. The indictment alleges loss, and the summary of evidence include prima facie evidence as to loss. As is standard in all such charges.

    Got a link for that?

    2. Criminal guilt or innocence doesn’t depend on loss. You are confusing civil & criminal law.

    No, I’m observing that the allegations of racketeering and money laundering seem to depend on wrongdoing regarding copyright violation.

    Why do you want to make a special exception reversing that for Dotcom?

    Because US courts (and NZ courts) have a problem with recognizing fair use.

    The prosecution can’t raise potential defences on behalf of defendants. Only the defendant can.

    For the defendant to raise this defence jurisdiction would have to exist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Hahahahahahahaha! Classic quote. The fair use doctrine of copyright law will expose our judicial system as corrupt!

    I never mentioned the US doctrine. What exposes the corruption is the perverted description of the law of the land used by the NZ judicial system. The issue of fair use simply highlights the injury of public rights arising from this corruption.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Nostalgia-NZ (5,322 comments) says:

    ‘OOPs. My mistake though to be fair one is as bad as the other. both lefty shills. Imagine sleeping with the enemy.’

    The mistake doesn’t matter anyway because the argument relies on the ownership of a book and what or how ‘good’ Germans should think about that. But there we have it, hyperventilation about what a Minister might do in a Government not yet elected or formed. Maybe Espiner should check out his local chemist for tablets that prevent frothing at the mouth, or alternatively start doing a John Cleese style goose step march because he’s starting to sound like a voice from the 1930s.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. mikenmild (12,402 comments) says:

    Ugly, would you accept our Copyright Act as valid law?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. ShawnLH (6,693 comments) says:

    “Fair use”

    Translation: STEALING.

    There, fixed it. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    @Ugly

    Got a link for that?

    Geez, you can’t even google for “kim dotcom indictment” and “kim dotcom evidence”??? No wonder your statements are… shall we say, lacking in accuracy.

    What exposes the corruption is the perverted description of the law of the land used by the NZ judicial system.

    What? At the risk of feeding a troll, what exactly is the “perverted description of the law of the land used by the NZ judicial system”?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Ugly, would you accept our Copyright Act as valid law?

    In this case it depends on the nature of the obligations arising from Dotcom’s residency. Aside from that I don’t know enough specifics to comment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Geez, you can’t even google for “kim dotcom indictment” and “kim dotcom evidence

    Yeah, did that, got a a link to a huge PDF that started off by presenting an unsupported assertion of guilt.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. ShawnLH (6,693 comments) says:

    “Geez, you can’t even google for “kim dotcom indictment” and “kim dotcom evidence”??? No wonder your statements are… shall we say, lacking in accuracy.”

    Keep in mind that UT is a guy who believes in reptilian shapeshifters running the planet.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    What? At the risk of feeding a troll, what exactly is the “perverted description of the law of the land used by the NZ judicial system”?

    pervert: c.1300 (transitive), “to turn someone aside from a right religious belief to a false or erroneous one,” from Old French pervertir “pervert, undo, destroy” (12c.) and directly from Latin pervertere “overthrow, overturn,” figuratively “to corrupt, subvert, abuse,” literally “turn the wrong way, turn about,” from per- “away” (see per) + vertere “to turn” (see versus).
    http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=pervert

    The common law, which is a body of law built up from decisions made in the United Kingdom and in New Zealand.
    http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/t/the-new-zealand-legal-system

    lex terre: The law of the land. The common law, or the due course of the common law; the general law of the land. Equivalent to “due process of law”. In the strictest sense, trial by oath; the privilege of making oath. (Blacks 5th)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. mikenmild (12,402 comments) says:

    Hey, Ugly you just accepted that the common law is a body of law built up from decisions.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Keep in mind that UT is a guy who believes in reptilian shapeshifters running the planet.

    Hey, Kiwiblog’s most prolific liar is back!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Hey, Ugly you just accepted that the common law is a body of law built up from decisions.

    That’s a stupid thing to say, even for you, mikenmild.

    I quoted the perverted description of common law used by the NZ judiciary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. ShawnLH (6,693 comments) says:

    Which planet do these reptilian shapeshifters come from UT?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. mikenmild (12,402 comments) says:

    No, you provided it as a definition of the common law. Feel free to backtrack on that and provide a more accurate definition, in your view.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. ShawnLH (6,693 comments) says:

    Careful mike, he’ll be accusing you of lying shortly.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    No, you provided it as a definition of the common law.

    A perverted, false definition which blatantly contradicts the historical meaning. I posted a more accurate meaning as lex terre.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. mikenmild (12,402 comments) says:

    Ok, even though you have not really explained exactly what YOU mean by the common law, I’m still interested in how it gets changed. You seem to have ruled out judges and the legislature. How does the law get changed?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. ShawnLH (6,693 comments) says:

    “Feel free to backtrack on that”

    Backtracking and changing his story seems to be his standard rhetorical tactic.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Rich Prick (1,750 comments) says:

    If you know nothing of jurisprudence you’re better off not guessing at how it works. Oh, and google is no substitute for 4 years of study and many years in practice. Looking at you UT.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Backtracking and changing his story seems to be his standard rhetorical tactic.

    You’re such a liar, ShawnLH. No answer for state’s judicial corruption either, I see.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    @Ugly

    Yeah, did that, got a a link to a huge PDF that started off by presenting an unsupported assertion of guilt.

    Supported enough to be issued by a Grand Jury. Actual evidence is resolved at trial. That’s how the system has worked for several centuries, but you seem to think that everyone should make a special exception for Dotcom.

    However it’s clear that you are not really interested nor capable of engaging in a sensible and factual discussion on this.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    If you know nothing of jurisprudence you’re better off not guessing at how it works. Oh, and google is no substitute for 4 years of study and many years in practice. Looking at you UT.

    Bring it on, Rich Prick. Perversion is a form of corruption, and the state description of the common law is perverted because is omits it’s the essential nature, i.e. the relationship between man and deity implied by an oath.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. mikenmild (12,402 comments) says:

    You are back fencing around your definition of the common law. Again, what I want to know is the process by which the law is changed, if not by judges or parliament?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Supported enough to be issued by a Grand Jury.

    Juries are kept from matters of law, i.e. the interpretation of fair use.

    Actual evidence is resolved at trial.

    Which can’t happen without jurisdiction, which doesn’t exist because Dotcom is not a US person.

    That’s how the system has worked for several centuries, but you seem to think that everyone should make a special exception for Dotcom.

    No an exception so much as a refusal to be a party to conspiracy.

    However it’s clear that you are not really interested nor capable of engaging in a sensible and factual discussion on this.

    What, because ShawnLH reverted to lying about me when he found himself unable to argue the point?

    Can you explain the discrepancy between the state description of common law and the historical one? The point is quite relevant to the issue of fair use.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. ShawnLH (6,693 comments) says:

    Arguing the “point” such as it was is easy. Arguing it with a bullshit artist plays word games is a different story.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Is Dotcom paying you every time you write about him?

    At this rate you are going to wind up a very wealthy man. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. ShawnLH (6,693 comments) says:

    Mike, UT does not give straight answers to straight questions. He’ll cut and paste an answer that in and of itself is ludicrous, then when challenged claim it was not really his answer at all.

    He still has not got the guts to give a straight answer to the question of what the Queen was supposed to have been doing at this mythical picnic he seems to have made up.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    You are back fencing around your definition of the common law.

    Here are some real historical descriptions. Note the difference to the perverted description that the state uses.

    common law: 1. As distinguished from the Roman law, the modern civil law, the canon law, and other systems, the common law is that body of law and juristic theory which was originated, developed, and formulated and is administered in England, and has obtained amongst most of the states and peoples of Anglo-Saxon stock. Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal 255, 10 Pac. 674. 2. As distinguished from law created by the enactment of legislatures, the common law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs; and in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England. (Black’s 5th)

    LAW, COMMON. The common law is that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. It has never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, which is the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law. It has never been reduced to writing; by this expression, however, it is not meant that all those laws are at present merely oral, or communicated from former ages to the present solely by word of mouth, but that the evidence of our common law is contained in our books of Reports, and depends on the general practice and judicial adjudications of our courts. 2. The common law is derived from two sources, the common law of England, and the practice and decision of our own courts. In some states the English common law has been adopted by statute. There is no general rule to ascertain what part of the English common law is valid and binding. To run the line of distinction, is a subject of embarrassment to courts, and the want of it a great perplexity to the student. Kirb. Rep. Pref. It may, however, be observed generally, that it is binding where it has not been superseded by the constitution of the United States, or of the several states, or by their legislative enactments, or varied by custom, and where it is founded in reason and consonant to the genius and manners of the people. (Bouvier’s dictionary of law)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. ShawnLH (6,693 comments) says:

    He’s pulling definitions of law out of his ass.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. mikenmild (12,402 comments) says:

    So you would accept that common law is still in force except where it has been superseded by legislative encatments?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    He still has not got the guts to answer the question about what the Queen was supposed to have been doing at this mythical picnic he made up.

    What’s the bet this lying sack of shit won’t say why he said that I claimed that his queen kidnapped children.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. ShawnLH (6,693 comments) says:

    Kidnapped, ate, fed to reptilian shapeshifters, whatever. Still no straight answer as to what YOU were claiming in the first place.

    Is telling us what you think she did difficult in some way? Or are you waiting for the Mothership to beam the answer to you?

    Hint: your tinfoil hat might be getting in the way.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. mikenmild (12,402 comments) says:

    Also, how is Queen Elizabeth II not your queen?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    So you would accept that common law is still in force except where it has been superseded by legislative encatments?

    They key to understanding this one is that in NZ the legislation is only binding on persons, not on people in general. Likewise NZ district courts do not have universal jurisdiction, but only personal jurisdiction (aka jurisdiction in personam).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Elaycee (4,425 comments) says:

    @Ugly Truth: How did your personal interpretation of NZ’s Law help you when you challenged the Courts re your Drivers Licence?

    IIRC, you ended up getting your arse handed back to you on a plate – just before you accused the same Judge of committing perjury… How did Black’s 5th / Ugly’s ‘law’ help you then? Not that good for you, was it?

    You’re not exactly covering yourself in glory here, mate. Why don’t you just quit whilst you’re behind?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    @Ugly

    I’d better make this my last response on this. I get the sense you are heading into troll territory (if not already).

    Juries are kept from matters of law, i.e. the interpretation of fair use.

    Juries are abiters of fact, but they are certainly not “kept from matters of law”. In fact judges go to great lengths to explain the legal tests that juries often have to apply in making factual determinations. Your comment is completely wrong, and frankly ignorant.

    Which can’t happen without jurisdiction, which doesn’t exist because Dotcom is not a US person.

    Um, you don’t need to be a “US person” before you can be charged with a crimes in the US and brought to trial. Nor do you need to be a “NZ person” before you can be charged here. This is why most countries have extradition treaties. Unless you support alleged criminals being able to easily escape justice (which you seem to support in Dotcom’s case), extradition is necessary. And it ain’t going away, so get used to it.

    Can you explain the discrepancy between the state description of common law and the historical one? The point is quite relevant to the issue of fair use.

    I have no idea what this even means, I’m afraid. However, you have demonstrated such fundamental misunderstanding about even basic legal concepts that there is no point taking this further.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Also, how is Queen Elizabeth II not your queen?

    Because I owe her no allegiance. Why would anyone with a sense of morality swear allegiance to someone complicit in the genocide of children in the name of Christian education?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. mikenmild (12,402 comments) says:

    Ok then, how do you distinguish between persons and people and how do you make the case that legislation is only binding on persons?
    But you haven’t been asked to swear allegiance to her – that’s not necessary to make her your queen. Notwithstanding you have no evidence that she was complicit in genocide.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. ShawnLH (6,693 comments) says:

    Ironically, Liz is strictly speaking not my Queen, I’m just resident in her domain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. ShawnLH (6,693 comments) says:

    “@Ugly Truth: How did your personal interpretation of NZ’s Law help you when you challenged the Courts re your Drivers Licence?”

    He seriously did that???

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Juries are abiters of fact, but they are certainly not “kept from matters of law”.

    They are kept from them in the sense that in the civil process the judge “owns” interpretation of the law.

    Um, you don’t need to be a “US person” before you can be charged with a crimes in the US and brought to trial.

    That involves the fraudulent assumption of jurisdiction. The US doesn’t have universal jurisdiction.

    I have no idea what this even means,

    What it means is that by ignoring the theistic nature of the common law the state also ignores the common law natural rights, with the natural right of liberty being directly related to fair use.

    I’m afraid. However, you have demonstrated such fundamental misunderstanding about even basic legal concepts that there is no point taking this further.

    If I have such a fundamental misunderstanding, then how is it that I was able to get a district court judge to admit that he had committed fraud while attempting to obtain jurisdiction?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. mikenmild (12,402 comments) says:

    Shawn
    He got in a little legal difficulty and took it badly when a judge remanded him for a psychiatric evaluation, IIRC.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Elaycee (4,425 comments) says:

    @ShawnLH: Yes, he did….

    UT is someone who makes a habit out of Pushing doors clearly marked “Pull”…. :roll:

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. ShawnLH (6,693 comments) says:

    “He got in a little legal difficulty and took it badly when a judge remanded him for a psychiatric evaluation”

    Ah, that explains a great deal.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    Indeed it does. Sounds like one of those cranks who tried and failed to get off a parking ticket, and as a result accuses the whole country of being corrupt and unconstitutional :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    @Ugly Truth: How did your personal interpretation of NZ’s Law help you when you challenged the Courts re your Drivers Licence?

    It proved that they were acting unlawfully. One judge admitted to committing fraud, the other refused to address the issue of common law interpretation of statue in court.

    IIRC, you ended up getting your arse handed back to you on a plate – just before you accused the same Judge of committing perjury

    You didn’t remember correctly. The judge who committed the fraud ordered a psych eval despite the court psychologist saying that there was little or no basis for it. Generally they delay when they run into problems.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Sounds like one of those cranks who tried and failed to get off a parking ticket, and as a result accuses the whole country of being corrupt and unconstitutional

    It isn’t the country that is corrupt, it is the judicial system. The “cranks” know that they system is all fucked up, they just don’t know why and so they often end up shooting themselves in the foot in court.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Elaycee (4,425 comments) says:

    UglyTruth: The judge… …ordered a psych eval

    No shit, Sherlock. :P

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    The corrupt fuckers don’t like being called on their fraud.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. mikenmild (12,402 comments) says:

    I’m still interested in your answer to my 3.38pm comment.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. ShawnLH (6,693 comments) says:

    “The corrupt fuckers don’t like being called on their fraud.”

    or they just know the law better than you do. Way better I suspect.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    If they knew the law they wouldn’t commit fraud in court.

    Judici satis paena est quod Deum habet ultorem. It is punishment enough for a judge that he is responsible to God.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Rich Prick (1,750 comments) says:

    “Bring it on, Rich Prick. Perversion is a form of corruption, and the state description of the common law” … bla, bla bla.

    Sorry my tin-foil hat wearing friend, I can’t be arsed with nut-cases, that’s what we fund community law centres are for.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Ok then, how do you distinguish between persons and people

    person: A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. no. 137. A human being considered as capable of having rights and or being charged with duties, while a “thing” is the object over which rights may be exercised. (Black’s 2nd (1910))

    People, in general, don’t have rank. Police constables and sergeants do have rank and are therefore persons.

    and how do you make the case that legislation is only binding on persons?

    Because just as governments are creations of people, corporations (called persons) are creations of government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Sorry my tin-foil hat wearing friend, I can’t be arsed with nut-cases, that’s what community law centres are for.

    Sure Rich Prick, run away from the facts like one of the state’s little bitches.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Nostradamus (2,433 comments) says:

    UglyTruth:

    If I have such a fundamental misunderstanding, then how is it that I was able to get a district court judge to admit that he had committed fraud while attempting to obtain jurisdiction?

    Yes, you’ve made this assertion before, but you were unable to substantiate it on this thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. mikenmild (12,402 comments) says:

    So Ugly, are you a person?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Rich Prick (1,750 comments) says:

    “Sure Rich Prick, run away from the facts like one of the state’s little bitches.”

    Heh, never been called that before. Facts are rather important matters in my work, not sure which ones you need me to run away from. I think you’ve trolled this discussion enough for one day. Refrain. Cheers.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    Rich Prick (1,290 comments) says:
    March 30th, 2014 at 1:51 pm

    [Yoza]“This is largely true, both systems seem to disproportionately target young coloured people from underprivileged backgrounds while vigorously defending the wealth and privilege of established elites.”

    OK, calling BS on that as one who works in both jurisdictions. It just happens to be a product of the numbers of those who offend. But notwithstanding that, I would have thought you’d be rejoicing in a wealthy and privileged German elite being indicated for his alleged crimes and extradited to stand trial for the same.

    Pfft.

    New Zealand prison population: 51% Maori, 33% European, 12% Pacific Island, 3% Asian, 2% other.

    New Zealand population by ethnicity: 67.6% European, 14.6% Maori, 9.2% Asian, 6.9% Pacific Island, 12.1% other.

    And the US:

    According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) non-Hispanic blacks accounted for 39.4% of the total prison and jail population in 2009 (841,000 black males and 64,800 black females out of a total of 2,096,300 males and 201,200 females). According to the 2010 census of the US Census Bureau blacks (including Hispanic blacks) comprised 13.6% of the US population.

    Rich Prick:

    But notwithstanding that, I would have thought you’d be rejoicing in a wealthy and privileged German elite being indicated for his alleged crimes and extradited to stand trial for the same.

    It is difficult to have any empathy for someone who dished out $50,000 so John Banks could satisfy his political ambitions.
    However, the sinister underhand dealings of the FBI with our, supposedly, sovereign security apparatus; the similarity of this case with the Viacom/YouTube Google debacle; the way the Key regime reflexively bows and scrapes to US interests; the recent coordinated character assassination/smear campaign of Dotcom; the dubious money laundering and racketeering charges and a bunch of other stuff all combine to make this appear to be the kind of witch-hunt that Ahmed Zaoui endured.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Nostradamus (2,433 comments) says:

    Yoza:

    You’ve completely missed Rich Prick’s point. You say “both systems seem to disproportionately target young coloured people from underprivileged backgrounds”. Rich Prick says “It just happens to be a product of the numbers of those who offend“.

    Let’s take a hypothetical population of nine people and three ethnic categories: 3xA, 3xB and 3xC.

    – The 3xAs are model citizens and don’t commit crime.
    – The 3xBs are a mixed bag. 2xBs don’t commit crime, but 1xB does.
    – The 3xCs regularly commit crime.

    Now, if the law enforcement authorities go after the 1xB and the 3xCs, then would you really be saying they’re disproportionately targeting the 3xCs?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. mikenmild (12,402 comments) says:

    I think Yoza would be on stronger ground if he noted that Maori were disproportionately represented in prison even as a subset of offender numbers in general: i.e. if you are Maori you are more likely to be sent to prison than another non-Maori offender convicted of the same crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Rich Prick (1,750 comments) says:

    Nostradamus gets it. As does Mike, show me a correlation between race, conviction and sentence. There is none.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Heh, never been called that before. Facts are rather important matters in my work, not sure which ones you need me to run away from.

    Obfuscate much, Rich Prick? I don’t “need” you to run away from anything. You started with the bla bla…

    Perversion is a form of corruption, and the state description of the common law” … bla, bla bla.

    Here is the context:

    Perversion is a form of corruption, and the state description of the common law is perverted because is omits it’s the essential nature, i.e. the relationship between man and deity implied by an oath.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Nostradamus (2,433 comments) says:

    UglyTruth:

    I’m wondering how you cope with the world you live in – nothing seems to be how you want it to be. Do you ever feel like the clownfish swimming downstream against a tide of salmon swimming upstream? (Not a perfect analogy, but you’ll get what I mean.)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Yes, you’ve made this assertion before, but you were unable to substantiate it on this thread.

    I was (and am) able to substantiate it, I simply wasn’t going to bother to conform to Nostradamus’ artificial standard of proof.

    As for the “exact quote from Judge Russell”, I twice requested a transcript and he blocked the requests.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. mikenmild (12,402 comments) says:

    Sorry Rich, I take that one back. From the Ministry of Justice:

    Neither Māori nor Pacific peoples were more likely to receive a prison sentence than Pakeha/Other offenders. The higher rate of imprisonment for Māori offenders (12% of cases involving imprisonable offences result in imprisonment for Māori compared to 10% for Pacific and 8% for Pakeha/Other ethnic groups) is therefore explained by differences in the seriousness of offending and the criminal histories of Māori offenders. For example the average seriousness score was 46 for Māori offenders, 61 for Pacific peoples and 39 for Pakeha/Other offenders, while the average number of previous cases was 9.7 for Māori, 5.6 for Pacific peoples and 7.8 for Pakeha/Other offenders.

    Although it may not be that clear cut. The Maori Party cite unspecified research that shows that for the same crimes Maori are:
    five times more likely to be prosecuted and convicted
    seven times more likely to be given a custodial sentences
    11 times more likely to be remanded in custody awaiting trial.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    I’m wondering how you cope with the world you live in

    I accept that people will have a problem with what I’m saying, and so I don’t get hung up about it when they talk like their brains just fell out.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Rich Prick (1,750 comments) says:

    OK, UT, you’re clearly fucked up, it’s 10.00pm here in LA, I have a case to run on Monday, you’ve given me a few smiles this evening though. Cheers.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Nostradamus (2,433 comments) says:

    UglyTruth:

    I was (and am) able to substantiate it, I simply wasn’t going to bother to conform to Nostradamus’ artificial standard of proof.

    Goodness.

    So you feel able to make assertions but, if someone asks you substantiate those assertions (bearing in mind that they relate to supposed admissions by third parties), then they’re imposing an artificial standard of proof on you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    OK, UT, you’re clearly fucked up

    You run away from from facts but I’m the one who is fucked up?
    Yeah right……

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    Nostradamus (2,719 comments) says:
    March 30th, 2014 at 5:40 pm

    Yoza:

    You’ve completely missed Rich Prick’s point. You say “both systems seem to disproportionately target young coloured people from underprivileged backgrounds”. Rich Prick says “It just happens to be a product of the numbers of those who offend“.

    mikenmild (8,162 comments) says:

    mikenmild (8,162 comments) says:
    March 30th, 2014 at 5:43 pm
    I think Yoza would be on stronger ground if he noted that Maori were disproportionately represented in prison even as a subset of offender numbers in general:

    Oh, I see. So what Nostradamus, mikenmild and Rich Prick are actually saying is that Maori and African-Americans are racially more predisposed to criminality than there European contemporaries.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. mikenmild (12,402 comments) says:

    Yoza
    Not saying that at all. You need to read before you respond.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    So you feel able to make assertions but, if someone asks you substantiate those assertions (bearing in mind that they relate to supposed admissions by
    third parties), then they’re imposing an artificial standard of proof on you?

    No, I simply don’t have any interest in conforming to your idea of what a “reputable” website is. If you want proof you could always write Richard Russell and ask him why he blocked a request for a transcript of him admitting to have committed fraud. Alternatively you could write Judith Collins and ask her why she blocked a remedy for wrongful imprisonment arising from judicial fraud.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Rich Prick (1,750 comments) says:

    “Oh, I see. So what Nostradamus, mikenmild and Rich Prick are actually saying is that Maori and African-Americans are racially more predisposed to criminality than there European contemporaries”

    Yes. And I see it in real life rather from a comfy seat in front of a PC.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    mikenmild (8,164 comments) says:
    March 30th, 2014 at 6:16 pm

    Yoza
    Not saying that at all. You need to read before you respond.

    I did, you cannot have it both ways. Either both systems, US and NZ, are systematically inclined to incarcerate Maori and African-Americans/Latinos or Maori and Afican-Americans/Latinos are ethnically predisposed to criminal behaviour.
    I would argue the system is targeting the marginalised populations described, a racist would attempt to equivocate about the disproportionately large representation of Maori and African-american/Latinos stuffed into predominantly European run industrial prison complexes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Nostradamus (2,433 comments) says:

    UglyTruth:

    Let’s summarise the position we’ve reached. We have your allegation. We have no evidence to substantiate your allegation. You’ve come up with all manner of excuses to justify why you can’t or won’t substantiate your allegation. I’m happy to rest my case (unproven allegation) on that basis. I shouldn’t have to write to a District Court Judge to find out whether your allegation is true or not – the burden of proof is squarely on you (as the person making the allegation).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. mikenmild (12,402 comments) says:

    Yoza
    Just saying that the evidence is not strong that the disproprtionate rate of imprisonment for Maori is down to racism. Maori facing imprisonment are more likely to have previous convictions, be charged with more serious offences, etc than non-Maori. You could go back further and charge, as the Maori Party does, that Maori are more likely to be targeted by police, etc, but I haven’t seen any strong evidence of that.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    Rich Prick (1,295 comments) says:
    March 30th, 2014 at 6:24 pm

    [Yoza]“Oh, I see. So what Nostradamus, mikenmild and Rich Prick are actually saying is that Maori and African-Americans are racially more predisposed to criminality than there European contemporaries”

    Yes. And I see it on the front line.

    Crikey!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    mikenmild (8,166 comments) says:
    March 30th, 2014 at 6:29 pm

    Yoza
    Just saying that the evidence is not strong that disproprtionate rate of imprisonment for Maori is down to racism.

    So if the evidence is not strong that the disproportionate rate of imprisonment for Maori is down to systemic racism you must agree with Rich Prick about Maori and African-Americans/Latinos being racially predisposed to criminality?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. mikenmild (12,402 comments) says:

    No, that’s not the case. The reasons for the disproportionate imprisonment rate likely come down to a few factors, most notably socio-economic status.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Rich Prick (1,750 comments) says:

    Yoza, I’m currently taking a stabatical to do the equivalent of legal aid from Watts to Malibu and yup ever offender so far has been black. They tend to do the crime. What’s your point? This post was about our own escapee from the US judicial system.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    We have no evidence to substantiate your allegation.

    Wrong. You have the responses of two posters:
    ShawnLH lying and accusing me of pulling two dictionary definitions out of my arse.
    Rick Prick claiming to have legal experience and running from the facts that show that NZ’s judicial system is corrupt.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Rich Prick (1,750 comments) says:

    God UT you are a fuckwit, I am a lawyer. You are an idiot not deserving of any further thought.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    God UT you are a fuckwit, I am a lawyer. You are an idiot not deserving of any further thought.

    A lawyer that is too chickenshit to face the facts eh, Rich Prick?
    I eat your kind for breakfast…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    Rich Prick (1,296 comments) says:
    March 30th, 2014 at 6:39 pm

    Yoza, I’m currently taking a statically to do the equivalent of legal aid from Watts to Malibu and yup ever offender so far has been black.

    What ethnicity were the arresting officers, judges, prosecutors and prison owners?

    What’s your point?

    I was agreeing with mikenmild about the similarity of the NZ/US justice systems, most especially their propensity to ‘favour’ the non-white population.

    This post was about our own escapee from the US judicial system.

    Dotcom is not an escapee from the US judicial system, he is a subject of their attention as a consequence of the US judicial system acting as enforcer for US corporate interests. Watching the Key regime and the local law enforcement’s craven servility to corporate US’s demands is quite disgusting. I don’t see any of that bunch growing spines in the short to medium term.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Nostradamus (2,433 comments) says:

    So, UglyTruth, what do you do for a living then? Unemployed?

    Incidentally, you can’t avoid substantiating allegations by referring to what others have said in the context of a completely unrelated discussion. Rich Prick and ShawnLH weren’t at your hearing. It looks like you’ve been caught out and you’re trying to deflect and obfuscate.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Nostradamus (2,721 comments) says:
    March 30th, 2014 at 7:01 pm

    Are you suggesting that there are people in society who are not as equal as others?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Nostradamus (2,433 comments) says:

    Judith: Huh?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Rich Prick (1,297 comments) says:
    March 30th, 2014 at 6:39 pm

    The point is, that attention is given to ethnic minorities that makes them more likely to be arrested for crimes, than the dominant culture that tends to receive less attention – they also tend to be wealthier, more likely to be in employment, and not have suffered from historical cultural denigration.

    Cultural minorities are also more likely to be imprisoned because they cannot afford proper legal representation (no, on duty lawyers are not ‘proper’, they are overworked and often inexperienced, and often couldn’t care less). Ethnic minorities are also more likely to plead guilty to crimes they did not do, because of a feeling of hopelessness in trying to fight the system.

    But hey, lets not let reality get in the way of the ‘ideal dream’.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Nos,

    What has a persons employment or lack of employment got to do with the discussion? Are unemployed people ‘less equal’, not entitled to an opinion? I’m employed, I actually have three separate sources of income, so does that make my opinion more valuable?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    It doesn’t matter that they weren’t at the hearing. If Rich Prick is telling the truth about being a lawyer (my guess is that he his) then he shouldn’t have any difficulty in dismembering the argument of an idiot. In the past he was happy enough to get the short version on judicial corruption, why would he run away now that he’s got an audience?

    I’ve already posted a link to the list of ShawnLH’s lies about me re the involvement of the house of Windsor in genocide. Why would he lie about me posting false dictionary definitions unless it had something to do with them?

    It looks like you’ve been caught out and you’re trying to deflect and obfuscate.

    I’d be a true idiot to jump through your hoops.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Nostradamus (2,433 comments) says:

    Judith:

    What has a persons employment or lack of employment got to do with the discussion?

    Good grief.

    UglyTruth chose to make Rich Prick’s occupation a key point of discussion.

    His exact words were:

    – “Rick Prick claiming to have legal experience”
    – “A lawyer that is too chickenshit to face the facts eh, Rich Prick?”
    – “I eat your kind for breakfast…”
    – “If Rich Prick is telling the truth about being a lawyer”

    Seeing as UglyTruth has such a low opinion of Rich Prick, and apparently of lawyers in general, I decided to ask what he does for a living (as a basis for comparison).

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Bob R (1,421 comments) says:

    ***So if the evidence is not strong that the disproportionate rate of imprisonment for Maori is down to systemic racism you must agree with Rich Prick about Maori and African-Americans/Latinos being racially predisposed to criminality?***

    @ Yoza,

    For arguments sake, do you think that every cultural environment has had the same reproductive pay-off for aggression?

    That appears unlikely.

    “. But the advent of gardening technology freed males from subsistence work and, in the new social environment of display, aggression, and male coalitional violence bearers of 7R may have flourished, accounting for the evidence given by Ding et al. (3) of the recent increase in frequency of the allele. Finally, as polities emerged that suppressed the system of local anarchy, population growth occurred, land became scarce; agriculture became more labor intensive; and men were again forced into work to provision their families. The archetypes in the literature of anthropology of dad hunter-gatherers are !Kung Bushmen of southern Africa; the archetypes of labor intensive farmers are east Asians; and the archetypes of local anarchy are Indians of lowland South America like the Yanomamo. It is probably no accident that two of the best known ethnographies of the twentieth century are titled “The Harmless People,” about the !Kung who have few or no 7R alleles, and “The Fierce People,” about the Yanomamo with a high frequency of 7R.”

    http://www.pnas.org/content/99/1/10.long

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    Bob R (1,241 comments) says:
    March 30th, 2014 at 8:32 pm

    @ Yoza,

    For arguments sake, do you think that every cultural environment has had the same reproductive pay-off for aggression?

    I think environmental factors contribute more to an individual’s propensity for making harmful or negative decisions than do ‘hard wired’ genetically inherent traits. Does, ““The Fierce People,” about the Yanomamo with a high frequency of 7R.” go any way to explaining the horrors the US state inflicted on Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Iraq or Afghanistan? Do US soldiers and government officials have higher frequencies of 7R?

    As Judith points out the marginalised minorities are targeted from birth. The thing mikenmild seems unable to comprehend is the judicial system is not by itself targeting Maori or African-Americans, rather it is conforming to social and institutional norms that demand it join in the persecution of those minorities which have experienced centuries of oppressive behaviour at the hands of a dominant culture confident in its status of racial superiority.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Rich Prick (1,750 comments) says:

    UT, you are just weird. Sorry for your affliction, but help is at hand, just reach out for it. And in NZ it’s probably free, or paid for by me. I do think Kim will look good in an orange cover-alls though, just to be back on topic.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Rich Prick, the condescending lawyer persona is not a good look. Why do you think there are so many jokes about lawyers having no sense of ethics?

    Corruption is repugnant, and the defence of corruption by someone who knows the language of law is equally offensive. Here are the facts that show that corruption exists within NZ’s judicial system:

    corrupt (v.) mid-14c., “contaminate, impair the purity of,” from Latin corruptus, past participle of corrumpere (see corrupt (adj.)). Late 14c. as “pervert the meaning of,” also “putrefy.” Related: Corrupted; corrupting.

    pervert (v.) c.1300 (transitive), “to turn someone aside from a right religious belief to a false or erroneous one,” from Old French pervertir “pervert, undo, destroy” (12c.) and directly from Latin pervertere “overthrow, overturn,” figuratively “to corrupt, subvert, abuse,” literally “turn the wrong way, turn about,” from per- “away” (see per) + vertere “to turn” (see versus).

    The relevant meaning is the meaning of the term “common law”.

    The perverted meaning used by the state can be found here: “The common law, which is a body of law built up from decisions made in the United Kingdom and in New Zealand.”

    The perversion of meaning is the falsehood that the common law is nothing more than case law. The common law is not built up from decisions made in the United Kingdom and in New Zealand, but in fact is built up from the ten commandments as described in the legal code of King Alfred the Great.

    The oldest dictionary description of the common law that I’ve found is here:
    lex terre: The law of the land. The common law, or the due course of the common law; the general law of the land. Equivalent to “due process of law”. In the strictest sense, trial by oath; the privilege of making oath. (Black’s 5th edition)

    An oath is inherently theistic, and is not described by the state’s secular description.

    A fuller description:
    common law: 1. As distinguished from the Roman law, the modern civil law, the canon law, and other systems, the common law is that body of law and juristic theory which was originated, developed, and formulated and is administered in England, and has obtained amongst most of the states and peoples of Anglo-Saxon stock. Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal 255, 10 Pac. 674. 2. As distinguished from law created by the enactment of legislatures, the common law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs; and in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England. (Black’s 5th edition)

    Another description:

    LAW, COMMON. The common law is that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. It has never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, which is the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law. It has never been reduced to writing; by this expression, however, it is not meant that all those laws are at present merely oral, or communicated from former ages to the present solely by word of mouth, but that the evidence of our common law is contained in our books of Reports, and depends on the general practice and judicial adjudications of our courts. 2. The common law is derived from two sources, the common law of England, and the practice and decision of our own courts. In some states the English common law has been adopted by statute. There is no general rule to ascertain what part of the English common law is valid and binding. To run the line of distinction, is a subject of embarrassment to courts, and the want of it a great perplexity to the student. Kirb. Rep. Pref. It may, however, be observed generally, that it is binding where it has not been superseded by the constitution of the United States, or of the several states, or by their legislative enactments, or varied by custom, and where it is founded in reason and consonant to the genius and manners of the people. (Bouvier’s dictionary of law)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Scott1 (592 comments) says:

    If more crime comes from a certain demographic then it is natural for the law enforcement to focus on it and this focus will naturally result in those who do not match that demographic getting far less scrutiny when they do decide to commit the crimes. From what I have seen of statistics that seems to be the main effect – although there are other interesting things going on too.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. kowtow (8,945 comments) says:

    I’d rather read Mein kampf than the excrement,as Espiner so inelegantly puts it ,that Espiner produces.

    And that’s saying something because Mein kampf is a load of hate filled garbage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. OneTrack (3,372 comments) says:

    “I do think Kim will look good in an orange cover-alls though, just to be back on topic.”

    Do they have one in his size?

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

    Dotcom will make a good gang member’s “bitch” when he returns, against his will, with no political friends, to the US, being incarcerated in the pen for many years! Maybe he could take Lecher Len along for the rise, he would be in his element in the evil institution awaiting the fat slug.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. doggone7 (849 comments) says:

    So it’s a “little bit creepy to own a rare first edition of Mein Kampf personally signed by Herr Hitler and gifted to Hermann Esser but okay to have an ‘ordinary’ copy or borrow the same from your local library.

    But let’s be honest, to quote Colin Espiner, it’s a little bit creepy when a journalist given a big column in a Sunday paper can’t see his logic is fiddle-faddle.

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