Dotcom praises NZ justice system

26/09/2012 12:13:36 a.m.

dennis wrote:

Not impressed with the Herald choice of legal "expert". He has expressed opinion but knows nothing about the case. Is that ethical in the legal profession? There are 2 specialists in copyright law. One is a lecturer at the University. (Not the one spoken to). The other is David Harvey. David knows more about this case than anyone. He has ruled that context is important. (First sentence of his judgement). He has said that the Americans are attempting to utilize civil law in criminal context. Full stop. Not allowed by the Extradition Act. A charge must be one that New Zealanders would charge. The guy from the Herald apparently wants Kim to go through this eternally to fill up his pages. The extradition warrants should be revoked today. If they are not there is something going on that really doesn't sit well with me

24/09/2012 11:54:36 p.m.

dennis wrote:

Was The Crown Law Appeal on 20th of a general nature from Winkelmann J's decision, or was it an appeal on a specific question of law? If it was a general appeal our PM was an extremely naughty PM not to pass this across the road on 18th. Justices French, France and Arnold would be fully entitled to regard this as contempt of the Court of Appeal. Even if just a question of entitlement to information, the manner in which information was obtained is of considerable importance to the quorum. I doubt whether Mr Key really thought that Kim and his wife would drive down from Auckland and back just to check if John Banks was at work

24/09/2012 7:19:07 a.m.

dennis wrote:

We know of 4000 plus hours of Crown Law Office time. The police hours must be absolutely huge. (The list of items and emails is beyond comprehension). The dollar figure involved is also "beyond comprehension". Simon Power left. It must have become John Key's baby. The full content of the application made to Judge McNaughton had to be immediately passed to the "Minister" (s21). It surely wasn't put on Judith Collin's desk for her to walk into. This has to be John's baby, that he knew nothing of until the day before? No wonder John Banks could do nothing to assist. Perhaps he was telling the truth there. This news forum will have video of Mr Key saying he had no knowledge of the raid until the day before. Is that a lie? It is probably technically correct in that he didn't know the actual day. Is that what we understood?

20/09/2012 9:03:51 p.m.

Eric McLeod wrote:

Kim Dotcom should not be on trial for misconception of any form... Now John Key,John Banks,Bill English,Hekia Parata and Paula Benett, well now thats another story... Kim Dotcom has more Mana,morals and respect than all the above... My whanau stand supportive of this man in his morals and ways. All or best wishes go with you and your whanau Mr. Kim Dotcom

20/09/2012 8:41:54 p.m.

Johnny Fanser wrote:

Good luck Kim!

20/09/2012 8:35:13 p.m.

dennis wrote:

The principle of double criminality is satisfied where, and only where, any alleged offence against the law of the requesting state in respect of which extradition is sought would NECESSARILY involve a criminal offence against the law of the requested state if the acts constituting it had been done in that state. I maintain that you can not restrict his ability to fly, nor any other "bail" condition Judge Dawson because there is no extradition offence to answer under the NZ Extradition Act 1999. As David Lange would say "you can't have it both ways"

20/09/2012 7:46:34 p.m.

Brett wrote:

Let the man see the evidence! If the US has a case then it shouldn't be of any worry to them. Plus everything they have was / should still be Kim Dotcoms to begin with.

20/09/2012 7:46:27 p.m.

Brett wrote:

Let the man see the evidence! If the US has a case then it shouldn't be of any worry to them. Plus everything they have was / should still be Kim Dotcoms to begin with.