US has 'no legal grounds', says Kim Dotcom

23/09/2012 11:56:21 a.m.

dennis wrote:

PM Key. Sir, We have been fooled by the process yet again. The warrant is not an application of the Attorney General. It is an application by you, or more specifically, your Minister of Justice: “21(1) If a District Court Judge issues a provisional warrant under section 20, the applicant for the warrant must report the issue of the warrant to the Minister. (2) The applicant must include in the report to the Minister a copy of the warrant issued in the extradition country and the other documentary evidence produced to the court by the applicant. (3) On receipt of the report under subsection (1), the Minister may, if the Minister thinks fit, order that the proceedings be discontinued. (4) If the Minister orders that the extradition proceedings be discontinued, the Minister may cancel any warrant of arrest and order the discharge of any person arrested under the warrant. (5) The Minister must notify the court of any action taken by the Minister under subsection (3) or subsection (4)”. The adjourned Court application is actually an application by you (or Judith Collins) claiming you can "justify the person's trial if the conduct constituting the offence had occurred within the jurisdiction of New Zealand". That is untrue. The only available trial is a civil dispute under sections to 35 to 39 of the Copyright Act headed "Secondary Infringement of Copyright" and has no connection with extradition or rendition

22/09/2012 3:07:17 p.m.

dennis wrote:

It is the intention that determines the moral character of the action. {Lange/Pope)

22/09/2012 11:43:10 a.m.

dennis wrote:

Correction. My apologies Kim. Not by Key and Bank's definition of what is right and wrong. Prior to 1994 there was no such law against insider trading and nothing could have been wrong legally. Key and Banks are on a different plane of moral reality, as the alleged law-breaking would be deliberate.

22/09/2012 10:02:02 a.m.

dennis wrote:

And one more thing Mike. The share-trade legislation contributing to you referring to Kim as Dotcrim only came into effect in 1994. If it was prior to then he would have done nothing wrong (by Key and Bank's definition). Conversely if you had called him a criminal, when he is not, prior to 1 February 1993 you would become a criminal. If every computer entry you have made is seized by authorities, going back over all your time in business, Mr Key, and then withheld from you, could people like Jay Prabhu not invent whatever they wished? Be fair

22/09/2012 6:24:58 a.m.

dennis wrote:

The Right Honourable John Key. The other day you said you did not wish to discuss Dotcom's extradition because it is a matter before the Court. The extradition request is a request made to your Attorney-General who, in turn, made a request of the court for a PROVISIONAL warrant to arrest, which is still being considered 8 months later. This is an application you would make if there is an urgent need to prevent a dangerous criminal from escaping jurisdiction. It was made on advice of the same Solicitor-General who advised the Urewera raids and the raid of Vince Siemer's property. I say that you were given wrong advice and your Attorney-General must now diplomatically inform the US that we do not have a law in New Zealand that works in sympathy with their Digital Millennium Copyright Act and what they must do is change the claim to one that seeks damages from Mr Dotcom's company

21/09/2012 3:39:00 p.m.

dennis wrote:

How about a bribe, John. In exchange for another 1% of the majority, at least, get us a direct answer today as to whether Judge David Harvey was correct in asserting civil copyright law is attempted to being utilized to invoke the criminal liability required by section 4(2) of the Extradition Act. Do that now and it will immediately give back Dotcom's business and belongings, and he will probably be so engrossed resurrecting it from the dead, like most computer "geeks", he will not wish to sue the pants off of you or waste his intellect in courts

21/09/2012 1:17:55 p.m.

dennis wrote:

The point is, how many New Zealanders fell for the Hollywood show at Coatesville and have now woken-up and how many are duped? It "shows at what level of sophistication and refinement that subversion takes place" {Lange 1/3/1985}. If clean slate Law applies it is contempt to override that as done by Simon Power, and to broadcast the misinformation is defamation which is CRIMINAL in some jurisdictions, and used to be in New Zealand. The fact that it is no longer a crime here does not make it morally defensible, nor provide reason to decline a resident the right to buy an expensive house, Mr Key. I noted you had difficulty explaining the Government action. It's because it is morally indefensible and you seem to have a vague awareness but no way to grasp that

21/09/2012 8:40:50 a.m.

dennis wrote:

Actually Mike, didn't some "important" prick representing the Motion Picture Association make the same insinuation as you, in a public statement, just prior to Ira Rothken's Court hearing about Megaupload Limited's status? Therefore Dotcom could complain to the Finnish authorities and, perhaps seek extradition of the smart prick to face charges, depending on the treaties that exist between Finland and America

21/09/2012 6:16:55 a.m.

dennis wrote:

Mike. Finland does have criminal defamation which is aggravated when the offence is committed by using the mass media or otherwise by making the information or insinuation available to many persons, making it liable for up to 2 years in prison. However you could not be extradited because, as with Dotcrim's charges, the New Zealand equivalent remedies are civil only. But you can fly over and turn yourself in if you wish

20/09/2012 5:12:49 p.m.

Anakin wrote:

What a dick head you are Mikeass! Before you say something stupid you should get your facts right. stupid. You must be doing nothing and just bored with your life ha.