Dotcom's family treated like terrorists - lawyer

Email
Print

Dotcom's family treated like terrorists - lawyer

3News NZ

Police say Dotcom presented himself as a gangster

Police say Dotcom presented himself as a gangster

By Ingrid Hipkiss

Kim Dotcom's lawyer has accused police of treating his client and family like terrorists, and then distorting the truth to make themselves look better.

The assault came during a High Court hearing to determine what will happen to evidence seized from Dotcom after the search warrants used were deemed invalid.

Police insist they only did what was necessary to secure evidence and Dotcom's arrest.

They had been briefed that Dotcom presented himself as a gangster and had a disrespect for police; they suspected he was armed, and the FBI told them he was capable of destroying evidence at the push of a button.

“As a result of our actions everybody was located quickly, the evidence was retained and on that basis it was deemed a success,” says Det Insp Grant Wormald of the Organised and Financial Crime Agency.

But Dotcom’s lawyer, Paul Davison QC, says people at the property were herded into the courtyard at gunpoint after an anti-terror type raid, and he accused police of exaggerating Dotcom's resistance in a media statement.

One example he gave was that police claimed they had had to cut their way into a safe room when in fact they'd been led to the room.

“You have distorted the truth to make it look like a justifiable use of the STG and armed offenders squad,” says Mr Davison.

The case will continue next week.

3 News

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

4/09/2012 10:09:05 a.m.

dennis wrote:

Andy Griffith: "I don’t think that we any of us ever overtly thought about that. I wanted to keep the characters clean. If a joke would make a liar out of a character we’d throw the joke out and that became very important, it became a basic rule, and because of the nature of the show, morality just came right along with it…. As Bob Sweeney used to say it looks like an ordinary little town but it has a little border of insanity around it”

3/09/2012 9:02:49 a.m.

dennis wrote:

How does the court calculate the extent of restraint without first deducting whatever the accused had before the alleged copyright offending occurred? Doesn't it come back to reading the law "in context" as noted by His Honour Judge Harvey and not clinging to out-of-context sections of statute to claim spurious jurisdiction?

2/09/2012 9:40:55 a.m.

dennis wrote:

“The document, released by the courts, claims the now-defunct file-sharing company Megaupload had copies of Love Birds, starring Rhys Darby, and Tracker, starring Temuera Morrison, on its servers” (NZ Herald). This information was presented as evidence to provide “reasonable grounds to believe” that warrants were valid, obviously inferring that this section of the Copyright Act is breached: “Every person commits an offence against this section who, other than pursuant to a copyright licence possesses in the course of a business with a view to committing any act infringing the copyright an object that is, and that the person knows is, an infringing copy of a copyright work”. There were 800 file transfers completing every second at the time. That is 48,000 a minute. 2.9 million an hour. 69 million a day. Half a billion a week. Was this explained in the Court application along with the intention to carry firearms?

30/08/2012 10:13:05 p.m.

dennis wrote:

Judge O'Grady said days rather than weeks, or did he mean weeks rather than months, or is he waiting to see what Justice Winkelmann does next? Catch 22?

22/08/2012 3:25:29 p.m.

Roy H wrote:

Just deport the guy and be done with it - I like most New Zealanders are sick and tired of the whole sorry tale. Given his criminal past he shouldn't have been let into NZ. If a kiwi were to be busted for a similar crime in German they'd be out before you could say volkswagen......

12/08/2012 3:47:41 p.m.

Andrew wrote:

@Mike Using your words, why do you think there are so many 'crim' supporters? (You've presumed he's guilty before a trial has taken place I might add.) I am actually curious if you think file-hosting sites are inherently illegal? What about torrent clients? Or do you think that changes should be made to how they work so that all the legal and useful ways in which you can use them can be fully utilized whilst reducing piracy to a minimum. We will find out when the extradition case actually goes on whether or not he will be extradited. I think the judges here in NZ will make a well thought out decision on it. Oh and I chose to flee to NZ because I heard it was a great place to live.

12/08/2012 7:40:42 a.m.

Mike wrote:

Next Dennis will be protesting NZ scientists, as it was Rutherford who kicked off the nuclear age by splitting the atom!

What we have here is a well funded media campaign much like the reds under every bed type of thing, but instead of it being against communism, this is crims against the world wanting freedom to rain crime around the world without accountability.

This whole thing is a sideshow in the hope that everyone forgets the extradiction to the US. Now the US has tougher laws than NZ on the internet, but even our internet companies are heading towards that level of compliance. Megaupload chose to ignore the law while operating in the US.

There is enough to extradite, as the requirement is actually very low. Even under NZ law up to 5 years jail can be given for copyright breaches with distribution, more than the 12 months required for extradiction. Its not required for their to be a trial in NZ, hence the defence making this sideshow and squealing like a stuck pig!

All the crim defenders are saying there is no fair trials in the US, where they like NZ have a jury system, and lawyers, and appeal systems. What the crim defenders are really saying is that any jury system is corrupt when crims are likely to be found guilty of law breaking. Obama isn't involved in this, neither is Key, and only an idiot would believe its all a conspiracy just to get an innocent dotcom and that every americain than could be on a jury, is been bought and paid for by Obama to convict dotcom!

I remember a audit several years back and the non-compliance in a govt department was over 90% of computers were breeching our copyright laws, and that level of breech sure fits the definition of 'distribution'. NZ has a bad record for enforcing copyright, hence dotcom chose NZ as a good place to flee US justice. But our law does allow for copyright, just we haven't done much to enforce it.

12/08/2012 7:11:11 a.m.

dennis wrote:

Andy died a few weeks back. So what relevance is an old actor from North Carolina to New Zealanders or this? He helped towards Barack's campaign. Would he do that in his 80s for the money or because he genuinely thought Barack was the man? Barack needs to sit back hard in his chair and consider that in respect of Andy, and consider that many or most voted for him, not his hangers-on. This guy was born with innate moral fiber (or learned it early)that reflected in every endeavor and everyone. He created a whole town where there ain't too many people wouldn't want to live, or have as their hometown. NZ was a bit like Mayberry. The stance on Nuclear fuel wasn't a moral stance. It was commonsense stance now proved wise by Fukushima reactor 4. His Sheriff Taylor and deputy if asked to fill-in for Grant Wormald would have competently arrested Kim without a fuss but an understanding of who and what he was arresting would be automatic as would securing devices capable of panic buttons if real, while they discussed things over tea and cupcakes before heading off to the station. RIP Andy

11/08/2012 1:23:53 p.m.

nothing new wrote:

"police of treating his client and family like terrorists, and then distorting the truth to make themselves look better." Is this news? I thought it was standard police procedure, as it is with most govt agencies like IRD, WINZ, ACC... just think Bronwyn Pullar.

11/08/2012 9:41:15 a.m.

dennis wrote:

Why is that in 2012 there is less innate sense of the tie-up between ethics, morals, common law, civil law, criminal law and common sense? Is the modern person advancing or going back?