Dotcom goes for NZ web address

30/11/2012 8:50:51 a.m.

zcat wrote:

I always told him he should've changed his name to Kim Dotcoenzed. Then the American DOJ and FBI can't touch him!

17/11/2012 10:43:00 p.m.

dennis wrote:

@"dennis"@3:02: You are sick, and so is the "editor" who thinks that your comments and those of "mike" are a great joke

17/11/2012 3:02:34 p.m.

DENNIS wrote:

"The Frankfurt judge are part of the socialist EU where it is better to chase Microsoft and Apple for persevered breaches in competition laws. Than to convict hackers and money launderers."

16/11/2012 7:26:01 a.m.

dennis wrote:

"The Frankfurt judges have since rejected this request, because it contains insufficient evidence. The US legal team failed to demonstrate that a web hosting service for the illegal upload of copyrighted files, amounts to a criminal offence. According to the German 'Telemediengesetz' (communications legislation), a hosting service for foreign files will generally not be accountable unless the host had active knowledge of illegal activity. The judges also emphasised that the concept of knowledge is limited to positive knowledge. Therefore if the service provider believes that it is possible or likely that a specific piece of information is stored on their server, this is not sufficient evidence of knowledge of abuse. According to the court ruling, there is no legal obligation to monitor the transmitted data or stored information or to search for any illegal activity. Since the US legal team did not mention any other circumstances that could constitute a criminal offence in their request for mutual legal assistance, the German court concluded that their request for the recovery of assets is unfounded." This is the kind of reasoning, for or against, that Judge McNaughton was expected to reason prior to issuing warrants. "A District Court Judge may issue a provisional warrant in the prescribed form for the arrest of a person if the Judge is satisfied on the basis of the information presented to him or her that (c)there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is an extraditable person in relation to the extradition country and the offence for which the person is sought is an extradition offence; and (d)it is necessary or desirable for an arrest warrant to be issued urgently." By being unable to support his action in effectively taking down a large business and detaining 4 persons, leaving any "reasoning" to the Attorney General (applicant), this is double incompetence. The first being Christie Marceau's protection

15/11/2012 1:06:55 p.m.

dennis wrote:

Rethink time Justice Potter. Grey areas surrounding 'criminality' mean no criminality. Which word tipped it for New Zealand's seizure? "Conspiracy" or power? Does not appear to be law

15/11/2012 11:34:25 a.m.

dennis wrote:

So, if the New Zealand Government is holding Dotcom in New Zealand against what they say is criminal evidence, and the German authorities are, under the same test saying it is not a criminal matter, isn't that kidnapping?

15/11/2012 5:49:34 a.m.

dennis wrote:

It is pretty significant that a German Court has denied the US assistance under the relevant assistance in criminal matters legislation. Their ruling, which should have been the same in New Zealand, is that it is not a criminal matter. It means that spying on Dotcom, with or without New Zealand residency, was perpetrated without warrant. Effectively an aggressive act against the legal protection of foreign states

14/11/2012 10:02:53 p.m.

dennis wrote:

Kim did not seek our help via the media to simply start a debate. This man had a successful business for seven years. He, his business, his family, friends and all users of his business had their privacy violated criminally and the Government assisted the US to spy on German and Finnish citizens some 67 years after the end of the war. If I were him I would use the law of those countries to take some serious action against the perpetrators of this with absolutely no mercy. He is fully entitled to get back what he had taken from him at which point aggrieved artists, writers, etc are welcome to define their grievances to him, or sue if necessary. The adversarial system of law is a means of adducing fact evidence IN COURT, that is all. It is not meant to start a war or debate or anything else, which only serves to cloud fact. Most lawyers in New Zealand don't understand this nor many judges. The Court exists to resolve, not create dispute. There is one particular judge that should be directed to and that is the one who created a "war" between two separated parents in her role as the child lawyer. Both parents were literally driven mad by the proceeding. When finally one party was awarded custody the child was murdered by the other. That is the extreme of the adversarial questioning technique moving away from the witness box, under oath condition to where it was supposed to be confined. There was no reason why those two parents could not have been civil and friendly throughout the Court process had it not been for the "affidavits" and reports created for the main motivator -- easy money. That lawyer, now judge must be extremely deluded, so much so that it is not even comprehended that the destruction of those lives was a direct consequence

14/11/2012 2:22:39 p.m.

Dae wrote:

Stella - dangerous thing to make assumptions about people you don't know. On the copyright saga: Think about what could happen if all creative people went on strike - apart from allowing paying members of their websites to view their non- downloadable creative out put. I think eventually we will have a new business model or models. In addition I believe that if Dotcon is what I guess he might be, (not above board), then he will reap what he sows - even without help from dubious govt searches etc. In my opinion few human beings can repress their guilt from themselves for ever. Wonder why he consumes so much and how he sees himself in the wee small hours of the day? Sometimes it pays not to be too clever and too smart....

14/11/2012 11:47:27 a.m.

Mike wrote:

Was the program on TV1 on Sunday. Former employee, footage of dotcrim being himself overseas, even Megauploads paying crminials for illegal material.

For some reason dotcrim refused to appear as it wasn't pro-him?

Not covered were things like the employees paid to change adresses while leaving the same illegal content up. Nor the sites run by megaupload that allowed users to download illegal content for fees that never got back to the copyright holders, or the investor structure in Megaupload which is less than squeaky clean.