Kim Dotcom’s lawyers claim small victory

9/09/2012 5:38:39 p.m.

dennis wrote:

U.S. Department of Justice January 19, 2012. Office of Public Affairs (202) 514-2007/TDD (202)514-1888. "The indictment alleges that the site was structured to discourage the vast majority of its users from using Megaupload for long-term or personal storage by automatically deleting content that was not regularly downloaded". True? "Substantial and critical assistance was provided by ... the Office of the Solicitor General for New Zealand". But he is now Judge Collins. We know these people don't err. Can only assume that he figured Parliament was too slow in respect of cyber-copyright legislation.

3/09/2012 2:32:27 a.m.

dennis wrote:

I don't know how Judge O'Grady operates his Court but how is he envisaging directing a jury on conspiracy charges by telling them to ignore that fact that the defendants have been labelled the mega conspiracy from day one, knowing full well that it is all over the media? Could it be that these charges have never been intended to go to trial at all and our court system has been taken for a ride

29/08/2012 9:06:27 p.m.

dennis wrote:

Interesting. If you add 'tv3' to the words 'kim' 'dotcom' 'justice' 'potter' and press search at Google unexplained take-down notices appear at the bottom of the pages

26/08/2012 5:46:37 a.m.

dennis wrote:

The only purpose behind the raid was to avoid Kim Dotcom’s lawyer. Judge McNaughton was complicit. He made out warrants to arrest and seize claiming spurious grounds for urgency and ignoring both enactments that might have provided him, and were claimed to have provided him, power (jurisdiction). The seizures specifically referred to a section of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act that did not allow jurisdiction without involving Kim Dotcom’s lawyer. The arrest warrant stated that he had reasonable grounds before him that an extradition offence was the basis. The matter later came before Judge Harvey who maintained this stance on one hand, and yet stated: “justiciable issues are complicated by the fact that the United States is attempting to utilise concepts from the civil copyright context as a basis for the application of criminal copyright liability which necessitates a consideration of principles such as the dual use of technology or what they be described as significant non infringing uses”. That challenges the “reasonable belief” statement and automatically creates only two options which are either nullify the warrants or urgently call for evidence that can demonstrate the breach of the equivalent criminal provision of the Copyright Act

20/08/2012 10:44:31 a.m.

dennis wrote:

So how did Justice Asher apply the Act's jurisdiction to disregard bail rights? Red herrings thrown at him by the Crown lawyer regarding "Participation in organised criminal group" seem to have done the trick. But that still comes back to s4(2). He could not have satisfied himself that an extradition offence existed without calling for the necessary information, which would result that Kim could not be lawfully detained

20/08/2012 5:04:31 a.m.

dennis wrote:

At this point the judge, Justice Raynor Asher interrupted Davison, asking him: “These are extradition offences? I assume you have satisfied yourself on that?” Davison said he had been waiting for ten or 12 days for the prosecution to respond to his request for documents.“I have been frustrated by being unable to get access to a range of documents that underpin the steps that were taken to issue the provisional [arrest] warrant.” “I have been requesting the Crown to provide me with the requisite documents, I have been told that the police hold the requisite documents and the police will respond.” 18 January to 18 August is a long time to sit on documents while a successful business is decimated

19/08/2012 10:20:59 a.m.

dennis wrote:

He'd have been a fat lot of use to protect his wife from TRESPASSERS if he'd been shot, eh Mike? Average Kiwi you,re not. Most Kiwis believe in fair play and that is why there is so much interest in this case. It is not just computer geeks and users that are affected by "authority" getting derailed. Does the Crown Law Office work for us or US? Who ever imagined such crazy statements as "the Crown lawyer acting for the US Federal Bureau of Investigation"?

19/08/2012 8:50:14 a.m.

Mike wrote:

Actually Banks was not even an MP when dotcoms residency was approved. Banks hasn't even been an MP for a year, having been an MP for 9 months.

Look at the timing.

Dotcom should be dotcrim, as he has a criminal history with convitions on 2 continents, with a 3rd continent wanting him to face a fair trial for more crimes.

Compare that to Stuart Murray Wilson. Yes Stuart Murray Wilson is a dirtbag that should be locked up permantly, yet at dotcoms age he had spent less time in court for crimes and hasn't had millions on PR/legal campaigns telling everyone how he is a nice guy, and wrongly accused by conspiracys. Compared to dotcrim, Stuart is probably more honest and upstanding member of the cummunity!

Dotcrim claims to have hacked systems around the world, and to have done criminal damage while hacking. This is what dotcrim has claimed himself, not charges that have been laid against him! Now under NZ law, hacking is illegal. No doubt his residency application included many lies, and NZ should duely investigate his application and revoke it on the first lie on his application and boot this crim out NZ. Dotcrim cant open his mouth without lying, so his residency application should be easy to find fault with.

Take the average Kiwi bloke. If they thought their wife and unborn child were threatened, they would have been down those stairs real quick. Compare that to dotcrim cowering in the panic room ... panicing. Dotcrim has an ego as big as ... well dotcrim, and that ego is overweight too.

19/08/2012 5:57:04 a.m.

dennis wrote:

In signing provisional warrants attesting to section 20(1)(c) the Judge proclaimed that he had visionary expertise by being able to decide sections 4(2) and 5(2) without information. Sections 4(2) and 5(2) define if a charge is an extradition offence. It is a basic necessity to determine that before claiming any jurisdiction at all further on in the Act. Just as it is necessary to fix the master boot record on a hard drive before booting it. If you do boot it then writes to the drive result in damage to data. Why not pass the request to Judge Harvey who knows about the internet and copyright to, at least, give some form of veracity to section 5(2) and 20(1)(c)? There were no valid grounds for urgency (s20(1)(d)) or considered steps taken that could state a belief that copyright breaches alleged were extradition offences (s20(1)(c))

18/08/2012 5:16:54 p.m.

jan.. wrote:

Mike, Dotcom was or is still wanted by the FBI and the US for frauds and laundered that was granted with a New Zealand Residency by the National Government however the way they presented Dotcom first arrival was celebrated mainly by Mr.Banks and wife where they asked for donations that was donated without hesitation plus the police raids and thats when they dragged this case further forward.. No worrie the New Zealanders and Safety are watching every movements of the above mentioned..