New Zealand Supreme Court Says DOJ Doesn't Have To Provide Its Evidence In Megaupload Extradition Case
from the blind-justice dept
Despite two earlier rulings that the US Justice Department needed to provide Kim Dotcom and others involved in Megaupload with the actual evidence being used against them for the extradition trial, an appeals court overturned those rulings and now the New Zealand Supreme Court has agreed in rejecting the request. While the chief judge dissented, the majority found that the extradition treaty does not require the country that has filed the charges against the individuals to provide the information and that the New Zealand courts have no real authority to order the US DOJ to provide the evidence. It does seem rather ridiculous that someone can be sent halfway around the world to face criminal charges without first being able to see the evidence against them, but that’s apparently the law in New Zealand. They might want to fix that.
Either way, the actual extradition trial was recently pushed back until July (it had been scheduled to start in a few weeks). Seems quite bizarre that they’re only just getting to the trial over extradition nearly two and a half years after Megaupload was seized and shut down. The judicial process isn’t exactly known for its speed, which is kind of crazy when you realize how quickly (and with such flimsy evidence) DOJ and New Zealand officials acted to arrest Kim Dotcom and his colleagues.
Filed Under: doj, evidence, extradition, fbi, kim dotcom, new zealand
Companies: megaupload
Comments on “New Zealand Supreme Court Says DOJ Doesn't Have To Provide Its Evidence In Megaupload Extradition Case”
Able to be tried/extradited due to evidence you’re not allowed to look at and/or file objections to, ah, the ‘justice’ system at work. /s
Re: Re:
Welcome to the Cardassian Justice System.
“The Cardassian approach to justice is radically different then that favoured by Federation worlds. Cardassians have absolute faith in their investigators, and maintain that only the guilty are ever arrested and brought to trial.
On Cardassia Prime a trial is intended only to demonstrate how the offender?s guilt was determined. Thus the purpose of the trial is not to establish facts ? these are already known, and cannot be disputed ? but to provide an educational experience for the populace, so trials are broadcast throughout Cardassia.”
“The offender is not allowed to introduce any new evidence whatsoever. Under the Cardassian judicial system, no evidence can be submitted once the verdict has been reached, and the always happens before the trial begins.
During the trial, the Archon calls a number of witnesses who provide evidence of the offender?s guilt. The standards of proof required are not high, and unsubstantiated claims and hearsay are admissible forms of evidence.”
Re: Re: Re:
It scares me that our country seems to be run by Star Trek aliens. We’ve got Ferengi economics accepted as the rule as “the free market.” I always thought that show was fiction! /sarc
“It does seem rather ridiculous that someone can be sent halfway around the world to face criminal charges without first being able to see the evidence against them, but that’s apparently the law in New Zealand. They might want to fix that.”
Except they can’t fix it they think that doing so would be an embarrassment to their country.
If the DOJ is not required to give the evidence to the defence, does this also mean they won’t be allowed to use the evidence during the trial?
Awwww….. poor Masnick. Your hero is going to have to face the music after all. I don’t know why you’re surprised that NZ doesn’t feel obliged to try the case before fulfilling its extradition treaty obligation.
Seems quite bizarre that they’re only just getting to the trial over extradition nearly two and a half years after Megaupload was seized and shut down.
This may have something to do with the fat fuck resisting extradition. He could have gotten on a plane to the southern district of VA years ago.
Nice to know he’ll be coming for an extended stay soon.
Re: Re:
It’s unfortunate that your abortion didn’t take.
Re: Re: Re:
It did…
Re: Re:
So if you find yourself facing criminal charges on the other side of the planet, you’d go? Also, the problem isn’t the length of time (unreasonable, but not horrible), the problem is that penalties were given out BEFORE the trial.
[i]I don’t know why you’re surprised that NZ doesn’t feel obliged to try the case before fulfilling its extradition treaty obligation.[/i]
They have to try it anyway, what they said isn’t he doesn’t get a trial, what happened is they said he can’t see the evidence against him.
Re: Re: Re:
So if you find yourself facing criminal charges on the other side of the planet, you’d go? Also, the problem isn’t the length of time (unreasonable, but not horrible), the problem is that penalties were given out BEFORE the trial.
No I wouldn’t. But neither would I be moaning about it being unresolved for 2.5 years. Every day in NZ is a day not in an American penitentiary. Not a place a soft, rich, chubby white boy will likely be comfortable.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So it’s ok that you wouldn’t go and face criminal charges in another country, but you think everyone else should??
that’s some hypocritical God complex you have there!
Actually maybe I should press criminal charges on Dotcoms behalf of you calling him a “Fat Fuck” which under NZ and Aust law can be classified as a criminal act (harassment, hate crime, etc). Could be interesting… you would probably win at the extradition attempt (seeing as the US allows no citizen to be extradited whatsoever) but good luck EVER leaving the USA for another country.
What??? you think the above is unreasonable and I haven’t got enough evidence in context to convict you… Sorry I do, I’m just not prepared to show you and will convict you in absentia instead.. so sad
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
So it’s ok that you wouldn’t go and face criminal charges in another country, but you think everyone else should??
Perhaps you should ask someone else to read what I wrote and explain it to you.
Actually maybe I should press criminal charges on Dotcoms behalf of you calling him a “Fat Fuck” which under NZ and Aust law can be classified as a criminal act (harassment, hate crime, etc).
Go ahead, but you are talking out of your ass. It is not a criminal offense nor are you able to “press criminal charges on Doncoms behalf…”
Could be interesting… you would probably win at the extradition attempt (seeing as the US allows no citizen to be extradited whatsoever) but good luck EVER leaving the USA for another country.
Again, you amply make shit up. The US does allow its citizens to be extradite
From Mcnabbassociates.com: “A United States citizen is likely to assume that he cannot be arrested and sent away to stand trial in a foreign court. This is simply not so. United States citizenship does not bar extradition by the United States. Between ten and twenty percent of persons extradited to foreign countries are United States nationals. For them, such treasured birthrights as trial by jury, confrontation of accusers, and compulsory process may evaporate”
So I get that you are desperate to defend your hero, but do you really need to stoop to outright fabrications to do so? Pretty pathetic.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“Between ten and twenty percent of persons extradited to foreign countries are United States nationals.”
But the other country still has to present proof before the US will allow it.
Interesting how you left that out, boy.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Hey!!!!! It’s the “boy” guy again. Seriously dude, you need to work on your schtick. That’s been tiresome and unoriginal for years now.
FYI, the extraditing country needs to show probable cause, not proof. You and the rest of the Kim Dotcom Fan Club seem to think the infringement trial needs to take place in NZ before he can be extradited. As is with most of what you think- you’re wrong. Thanks for playing though!!
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
To extradite a US citizen from the USA the extraditing country usually needs to show proof and not just probable cause.
Hypocrisy at its finest from the USA!
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
You wrote: “No I wouldn’t.” in regards to you traveling to another country voluntarily to face criminal charges.. What part of your own response don’t YOU understand?
Harassment and ‘hate crime’ IS an indictable offense under AU/NZ laws, it’s also able to be actioned by anyone who complains to appropriate authority who charge on behalf of that victim (whether the victim allows them or not). AS for myself personally able to push for and/or actually write out charge sheets in regards to specific offenses that I have upon balance knowledge of you performing might surprise you. Then again you don’t know me either (and I don’t explain everything I do in open forums either).
As for the extradition of US citizens your laws require for that to happen that the laws are the same within both the USA and the jurisdiction wanting extradition, that the evidence (which must be presented in full to a US court) would allow committal/indictment proceedings to commence within the USA, that the USA constitution has overriding effect on all judgements, procedures, etc used in the other jurisdiction. So basically exactly the OPPOSITE of what the DoJ requires other countries to do.
There is NO reciprocity nor comity in regards to USA citizens being extradite compared to other jurisdictions citizens being extradited to the USA.
The ONLY fabrication here is you both confabulating and obfuscating the actual reality that is occurring in this matter.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
and,,,,,, crickets
why am I not surprised
Re: Re: Re:
“Sorry Mister Kornblum, that Hitler guy has a charge against you so we are shipping you off to Germany. We don’t know what the charge is, and neither should you. But there must be something to it or he would not have seized all your assets already.”
It’s sort of globalizing justice to the lowest common denominator. Let’s see whether Nigeria can ask the U.S.A. for the extradition of Rush Limbaugh with a similar rationale.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now, now, David, US law applies to everyone but those in power in America.
Re: Re: Re:
Mike Masnick just hates it when copyright law is enforced.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright infringement is not an offense you can be extradited from NZ for.
Re: Re:
“Nice to know he’ll be coming for an extended stay soon.”
So what you’re saying is that you think this decision will increase the likelihood of extradition, which is the same as admitting you think the evidence the defence wanted to see will show extradition should be refused. And you wonder why people think the justice system is broken…
Besides, if I had your ability to predict the future with such accuracy, I’d be buying lottery tickets instead of trolling.
Re: Re: Re:
So what you’re saying is that you think this decision will increase the likelihood of extradition, which is the same as admitting you think the evidence the defence wanted to see will show extradition should be refused. And you wonder why people think the justice system is broken…
Yes I think the decision increases the likelihood of extradition. I don’t think NZ courts have an obligation to try his US infringement case in order to decide whether to extradite him.
No, I don’t wonder why people think that about the justice system. I do wonder why people think it is OK to take the creative output of others and refit from it without paying the right holders for his work.
Besides, if I had your ability to predict the future with such accuracy, I’d be buying lottery tickets instead of trolling.
Stevie Wonder can see what’s going to happen. It seems just you and the other Dotcom fanboys trying to wish away his accountability for his crimes.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The “crimes” they haven’t been able to proof for 2.5 years?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
prove
And no, his US infringement case hasn’t been tried in NZ or anywhere else. Swing and a miss… strike three.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
yes, because Kimdotfatpig has been running scared, but he will get his chance in a court, that’s the law !
Re: Re: Re: Re:
US still has to show sufficient evidence as just cause – just not all of it. And they are going to have to show that for an extraditable offense. Since all of those on the indictment depend entirely in a quite laughable way on a non-extraditable offense [or maybe even non-offense], it is quite likely the extradition will be refused. That you admit it is more likely to be refused if the US releases the evidence shows that you admit just how weak the US case actually is.
Re: Re:
It says something about the quality of your character that you cheer when the rights of those you dislike are violated.
I can only hope, for your sake, that you are never accused of any crime. You won’t get any sympathy, and your heroes will have already established precedents that unpopular or inconvenient rights don’t exist.
Re: Re: Re:
It says something about the quality of your character that you cheer when the rights of those you dislike are violated.
I can only hope, for your sake, that you are never accused of any crime. You won’t get any sympathy, and your heroes will have already established precedents that unpopular or inconvenient rights don’t exist.
What rights have been violated? Because you like and support the guy doesn’t mean his rights are violated just because he gets an adverse ruling. Being a smarmy piracy apologists says volumes about your character as well.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well Joe, he had his business destroyed, his money and things stolen, his house trashed, his family scared, etc.
All of this without showing any evidence.
Nice form of justice you have there!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
And not forgetting Rapdishare were doing exactly the same thing with paying people to upload and having people to pay to use the storage and share their files but they were never shutdown and had their business destroyed and had money/assets seized and frozen. And not forgetting there is no extradition for the people of Rapidshare either to face crimes in the US. Talk about double standards and hypocrisy there.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I wouldn’t worry about responding to Joe. He only takes part in arguments where he can freely stroke his massive ego and bitch about Manick’s beliefs.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Joe’s comment no. 68 “Keep studying. At your current level, it seems you’re unable to detect the difference between being debated and being mocked.” is in response to someone and yet Joe doesn’t know the difference themselves with being debated and mocked when people respond to them judging by the responses that Joe continues to give to people. Oh the hypocrisy oozes from there every pore.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Not to mention his communications illegally tapped.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What rights have been violated?
Umm, how about the fact that he is a foreign national who ran a foreign company from a foreign country, but yet he was arrested and had his property seized for allegedly violating United States law.
Did I miss when it was declared that every country’s laws now also apply to every other country? I guess that means all the gay men in the US will have to be sent to the middle east to be executed, right? And the entire staff of Playboy as well as all the models are probably in line for public floggings in counties like Malaysia.
Or is it only US law that applies around the world? How can Britain get away with having 18 as the legal drinking age when the US drinking age is 21? They’re breaking US law! All those people need to be extradited to the US to face criminal charges! Right?
I’m still waiting to know what NZ laws Dotcom broke.
He never set foot in the U.S. after all.
Re: Re:
I’m still waiting to know what NZ laws Dotcom broke.
Oh look, the slow kid is at it again. What does this^ have to do with this>
He never set foot in the U.S. after all.
Perhaps not, but the dumb bastard leased servers in the southern district of VA. That means the US can exercise jurisdiction.
Re: Re: Re:
You keep spewing your hate and troll-like sentiments world wide too.. seems somewhere there has to be a criminal jurisdiction where you are guilty of something..
Lets find it shall we..
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let me know numb nuts. I won’t hold my breath waiting.
Re: Re: Re:
You know what? I’m pretty sure calling people names is a hate crime in New York, should I call a lawyer up and have you extradited to New York to face crimes?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know what? I’m pretty sure calling people names is a hate crime in New York, should I call a lawyer up and have you extradited to New York to face crimes?
Since you don’t seem to understand our legal system- let me inform you that you will need to contact a prosecutor regarding the prosecution of a criminal matter. But first better check and see if stupidity is a crime in NY. I’d hate to see you walk into a trap.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Prosecutors are lawyers. And it really says something about you when you think pointing out one minor error in an argument is enough to completely dismiss it.
Re: Re: Re:
Then you’d better hope you never have business dealings with any country that feels it can exercise some jurisdiction on you for something that’s a crime there but not where you are. Or any dealings whatsoever.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then you’d better hope you never have business dealings with any country that feels it can exercise some jurisdiction on you for something that’s a crime there but not where you are. Or any dealings whatsoever.
Thank you for your well-wishes. I’ll bet Dotcom would have appreciated hearing this from you several years back.
Re: Re:
doesn’t matter if he broke NZ laws or not, he’s not being tried in NZ, the US needed to provide enough evidence to warrant and extradition, not enough evidence to try and convict him, but I don’t expect you to understand that, after all you believe Mansick.
Re: Re: Re:
US have provided an indictment only. That is not enough. Given the raid and reasons behind hit, DotCom also has a colourable argument that he won’t get a fair trial in the US.
Re: Re:
None. NZ prosecutors already said there was no case to answer in NZ.
It’s unfortunate that your abortion didn’t take.
Hahahaha….. another Fat Bastard fanboy crying bitter tears. Sorry, your friend the corpulent grifter is going to have to explain how he earned tens of millions using willful blindness as a business model.
Re: Re:
So should the DOJ who’s head honchos raked in hundreds of thousands of dollars in ‘contributions’ from the MPAA and various hollywood scumbag lobbyists to go after megaupload
Re: Re: Re:
So should the DOJ who’s head honchos raked in hundreds of thousands of dollars in ‘contributions’ from the MPAA and various hollywood scumbag lobbyists to go after megaupload
I don’t suppose you have a shred of proof of this slander?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So when someone says the DOJ takes bribes from the MPAA, you shout “slander!” and demand evidence
but when it comes to Dotcom, you’ve already convicted him, you don’t care he doesn’t get to see the evidence against him or of him having to defend himself in a country he’s not a citizen of, you don’t care that the DOJ willingly let evidence that could have helped him be destroyed.
Double standards, much?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
So when someone says the DOJ takes bribes from the MPAA, you shout “slander!” and demand evidence
but when it comes to Dotcom, you’ve already convicted him, you don’t care he doesn’t get to see the evidence against him or of him having to defend himself in a country he’s not a citizen of, you don’t care that the DOJ willingly let evidence that could have helped him be destroyed.
Double standards, much?
At least there are news accounts and his own statements. Plus I actually visited his website. There is ZERO evidence of bribery of DOJ officials by anyone whatsoever. Just the fantasies of freeloaders and piracy apologists.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Curious. If A says something bad about B, C can’t say “Slander!” It has to be B who cries foul, in much the same way I, a non-employee or non-agent of Warner Bros. can’t send a legit DMCA to a website to take down a copy of a Batman movie.
Is this tacit admission from you that you are in some way affiliated with the MPAA?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Let me ask you something Rikuo. By your own admission you:
1. Are in your twenties.
2. Have no education past high school.
3. Are a grocery store clerk who fears being displaced by self-checkout.
4. Have never been laid.
5. Spending an inordinate amount of time playing games on the internet.
Is this a tacit admission that you’re a loser?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
So instead of trying to counter my arguments, you go for a personal attack.
Well done. The personal attack is the last gasp effort of those who have lost in the game of debate.
As for the points themselves…they’re true (except for 3, I’m currently studying and 5, I actually rarely play games nowadays, but hey) and so what? What does that change about my arguments to you?
Does the fact that I currently don’t have a magic piece of paper from a school somehow mean I am unable to debate?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
an observation is not an attack, unless you think it is!
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Don’t feed him. He’s already lost.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
And report the spam.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Keep studying. At your current level, it seems you’re unable to detect the difference between being debated and being mocked.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
ZERO evidence of bribery? Define “bribery.”
And while you’re at it, try this on for size.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Ummmm, DOJ officials don’t run for office and do not receive campaign contributions. Derp.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Do you REALLY think the DOJ is doing this all on their own without members of the US Govt. behind them? Derp, yourself. And while you’re at it, remember Chris Dodd was a Senator before becoming head of the MPAA. Revolving door, much?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
But they take orders from people who are.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/19/exclusive-hollywood-lobbyist-threatens-to-cut-off-obama-2012-money-over-anti/
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
It’s telling that you morons keep obsessing over Dotcom’s body shape rather than any facts surrounding any actions he’s supposed to have undertaken…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
compared to the defamatory remarks you just spewed forth??? regarding ‘grifter’, ‘fat’, ‘bastard’, ‘willful blindness’ etc etc.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
not defamation if it is true !!
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I think you need to figure out that truth is one thing, whereas what you wrote was until proven by a court absolutely untrue ie: grifter, “willful blindness”
And since they have not been proven they are NOT true and fall instead under allegations and/or imputations of criminal activity (moral turpitude if you will) and are therefore defamation per se and absolutely defamatory due to this. Just because a court might come to that conclusion (or not) in a future date does not make them truth just because you think so and would not be a retrospective truth either.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“I don’t suppose you have a shred of proof of this slander?”
Oh the naivety.
i just about fell off my chair
what the fuck?
haha NO EVIDENCE EH?
don;t care if the guys past shows him to be the worst human being on earth….we have laws to prevent 1500’s church lynchings…
average_joe just hates it when due process is enforced.
This is no surprise, the New Zealand government would look terrible if he were found innocent or not extradited, after they worked with the US and illegally spied on him…
Re: Re:
Not to mention all the effort they went through to make the raid, and therefore the evidence ‘gathered’ during it, retroactively legal, can’t let that go to waste now can we? /s
Re: Re:
They look terrible for this and other reasons already, actually. The current government is Not popular right now. Which does’t mean it won’t win the next election Anyway due to dodgy media shinanigans and the like, but still, when it’s own party members are bailing on it over some of the stupid shit that’s been pulled, it says something.
Really?
” Seems quite bizarre that they’re only just getting to the trial over extradition nearly two and a half years after Megaupload was seized and shut down.”
There is only one person to blame for that, and it’s Kim Dotcom (and the legal underlings working for him). He has been fighting extradition tooth and nail and trying his best to tie the NZ legal system in knots to look for a sneaky way out of facing justice.
What is key here is that the highest court in the land has pretty much dealt a death blow to his whole attempt to get the whole of the case tried in NZ, where justice might be ever so much more kind to him. The intent of his legal actions against extradition were clear from the get go, and the NZ supreme court has told him it’s a no go.
The case drags only because of Kim, plain and simple. If he wants to see the evidence against him, he only has to present himself in the court of law where he is charged, not in a safe haven half a world away. He could have turned himself over for extradition up front and saved himself 2 and a half years, instead he’s been dragging his feet and fighting all the way.
Good on the NZ Supreme Court for shutting down his nonsense, now it’s time for the extradition court to send him packing to the US to face up for his (alleged) crimes.
Re: Yes, really
Indeed, why, the kangaroo court in the US put together especially for him has been put on hold for several years now, how incredibly rude of him to demand that things be done legally and by the book(and the absolute gall of the man to suggest that an armed, illegal raid ordered and orchestrated by the US might indicate a similarly rigged case against him in the US) before allowing himself to be shipped over to face the best ‘justice’ money can buy.
/s
Re: Really?
So if New Zealand accuses you of a crime, you’ll gladly board a plane and fly halfway around the world to face justice?
Re: Really?
“trying his best to tie the NZ legal system in knots to look for a sneaky way out of facing INjustice.”
Fixed that for you.
The US conducted illegal raids on his property and servers in NZ, based on false claims from a corrupt business group, and Dotcom is the one trying to avoid justice?
I sincerely hope you’re joking, as I’d hate to think anyone would support the wrongdoings that have been made to pull Dotcom in front of a court.
Re: Re: Really?
I can’t say that I agree with any of what you are saying.
The US didn’t conduct any raid in NZ. NZ police did so. The only thing that qualifies as being illegal in those raids was basically some paperwork errors, mostly it seems because they don’t do many of these in NZ.
The false claims is pretty much crap, anyone and everyone on the internet knew that Mega was full of pirated material, and it’s clear from the information out there already that not only did Kim appear to know about it, he also appears to have structured his companies and sold memberships to his file hosting service based on those facts.
His attempt to avoid justice is simple: drag the case out of the US, try to fight it in NZ on a point by point word by work basis, dissecting the full evidence of the case in NZ and dragging it out as long as possible, repeatedly asking for constitutional rulings and attempting to get stuff thrown out in NZ to make the case in the US go away or be diminished. His strategy has come to an end, he faces pretty much a summary extraction hearing this summer, and he will be on his way to the US to face trial, if he doesn’t end up holed up in the Peruvian embassy claiming to be a political prisoner.
He tried to delay, he got his way for a while, and now his strategy has failed.
Re: Re: Re: Really?
“it’s clear from the information out there already that not only did Kim appear to know about it, he also appears to have structured his companies and sold memberships to his file hosting service based on those facts.”
This isn’t clear at all. Can you elaborate and provide evidence?
“he will be on his way to the US to face trial”
No, he won’t get a real trial. He’ll get a kangaroo court.
Re: Re: Re: Really?
Rapidshare did exactly the same as Megupload in the way it was ran but they were never shutdown, they never had their assets/money seized or frozen and they never were faced with being extradited to the US to face crimes and yet they continue to remain in business and operational to this day.
Re: Really?
No, Not really. Remember, the US strategy was to incarcerate him and deny funds to mount any sort of defense, presumably because the case was underrepresented in legal wrongdoing to the same extent that the raid was over-muscled. Well, NZ courts, DotCom, and a bunch of lawyers weren’t having that – which means the the US actually finds itself actually having to justify itself. So, no the US won’t get a corrupt and cosy little plea deal and dotcom will fight every inch of the way. Quite right.
Dotcom sure brings out the trolls.
Re: Re:
Indeed, any article discussing him or MU always seems to bring them out in droves, and inevitably leads to more childish name-calling than you’d usually find outside of a grade-school classroom.
And really, you’d think that after this long they’d have come up with better insults than just constantly referring to his weight…
This whole trial is a sham! No evidence being presented for extradition. The Chief Justice of the NZ Supreme Court might want to check if his co-workers are whoring themselves out to the MPAA. A bunch of hookers!
Re: Re:
This is an unfortunate side effect of some rather lopsided extradition agreements rushed through after 9-11 – you know, they might have needed them for an actual terrorist (but stuck to extraordinary rendition [ie kidnapping] anyway). I believe the NZ supremes are following the law correctly – it’s just that it’s an appalling law. The US still has to show sufficient cause – which it is finding difficult… the NZ courts have already observed that several of the charges are ringers – oh – that is all the ones you could be extradited for…
So if I wanted anybody extradited I just need to manufacture some accusations and pretend I have evidence but refuse to show it to get the process running. Sounds very fair and not prone to abuse.
Re: Re:
There is a presumption of integrity in the requesting authority. If you didn’t have doubts about the integrity of the US DOJ before, the recent revelations about spying, oversight, and the fact that Clapper hasn’t been indicted pretty much seal it.
I guess that no evidence is required to extradite all the witches in the world to Nigeria, homosexuals to Uganda, and alcohol drinkers to Moslem nations. Simply a claim of such.
Re: Response to: Groaker on Mar 21st, 2014 @ 5:59am
I hope you enjoy your trip to Kampala.
average_joe and darryl just can’t stand it when due process is enforced.
Re: Re:
so you ever get tired of being a fuckwit ?
Re: Re: Re:
Obviously you haven’t.
Re: Re:
average_joe and darryl just can’t stand it when due process is enforced.
Interesting how this comment was hidden earlier and now, here it is. I guess TD only hides comments it doesn’t like. Glad there’s no censorship here though.
The hypocrisy oozes from every pore.
Re: Re: Re:
Well at least it s better than…
MIKE, Y U NO SHARE YOUR BELIEFS!
Re: Re: Re:
Well, since it’s hidden, obviously you consider it insightful since you only consider hidden comments insightful.
I guess you really can’t stand it when due process is enforced.
And not forgetting Rapdishare were doing exactly the same thing with paying people to upload and having people to pay to use the storage and share their files but they were never shutdown and had their business destroyed and had money/assets seized and frozen. And not forgetting there is no extradition for the people of Rapidshare either to face crimes in the US. Talk about double standards and hypocrisy there.
So would you feel better if the principals of Rapidshare got the same treatment? I’m guessing you’d be here moaning about them too.
Re: Re:
Whatever is applied to one company to deal with it then the same should be applied to the other company.
Re: Re:
And Warner, and Sony, and News corp and and and…
And since they have not been proven they are NOT true and fall instead under allegations and/or imputations of criminal activity (moral turpitude if you will) and are therefore defamation per se and absolutely defamatory due to this.
So you’re saying that if I said G Thompson is a heroin dealer, that constitutes defamation per seabsent a conviction for heroin trafficking? What if there had been a prior conviction but at the time it was said, G Thompson wasn’t engaged in trafficking. What if there was a trafficking conviction after the statement was made.
Does there not need to be a court ruling on the question of whether someone actually has been defamed?
Methinks you are talking out of your uninformed ass….. again. It is truly painful watching how fucking stupid you are. Oops…… have you just been defamed per se in that strange world you live in?
Why Spy?
Ah, the power of blackmail!
It is astonishing how well blackmail works where all other forms of diplomacy and bribery fail.
One has to admit it. The NSA global surveillance programs have paid for themselves a million times over already.
Hardly anyone dares stand up against any US demands now.
average_joe, darryl and horse with no name just hate it when due process is enforced.