FBI Continues To Insist There's No Reason For Kim Dotcom To Be Able To See The Evidence Against Him
from the of-course-not dept
We already noted that the New Zealand judicial system apparently isn't as willing as the US expected to rubberstamp approval of the extradition of Kim Dotcom. Part of that ruling was a requirement that the US turn over the evidence they're using against Dotcom, so that he can counter it in fighting against the extradition. However, it appears that the US is still fighting this, having the New Zealand prosecutor (who is fighting on their behalf) argue that Dotcom should only be allowed to see a single document out of the 22 million emails the FBI collected and that this really isn't a matter for the New Zealand courts to concern themselves with, as they should just let the Americans handle it.Crown lawyer John Pike argued that there was no need for Dotcom to have access because he was not being tried in New Zealand.That's kind of amazing when you think about it. He shouldn't be allowed to even see the evidence against him... even if it might prove that there is no "case for him to answer to in the US." That's what's so troubling about the US position on cases like this one and the O'Dwyer/TVshack case. They seem to assume that it shouldn't be of any concern if they drag someone thousands of miles across oceans to face trumped up charges in the US.
The judge in the extradition case needed only to decide if there was a case for him to answer in the US, Mr Pike said, and that question was answered by the record of case.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: extradition, fbi, john pike, kim dotcom, new zealand
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If this case were clear-cut, they'd have presented the evidence already to get him to be extradited. There's no way that could work out badly for them. If the evidence is strong enough to request extradition, then all they'd have to do is present it, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bankers worldwide cost us all billions of dollars and have debased the quality of life for not just the current generation but possible the next two as well. Yet not one has been arrested... meanwhile someone operating a legal business (Even according to the US definitions, IE safe harbour) is hounded out of business by a government hat may have been coerced by big business and is too dishonourable and weak to even present their own evidence!
Gutless, and makes me more and more cynical about America as a country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
=P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One word explanation ( use it for 99% of US topics )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One word explanation ( use it for 99% of US topics )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One word explanation ( use it for 99% of US topics )
Pretty much every congressman, senator, cabinet member, heck even the president has taken bribes from the RIAA, MPAA, pharma companies and others to let laws written by corporations pass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hello, Sixth Amendment?
This has been interpreted as including the right to confront, or have defense expert witnesses examine, the evidence against one when accused by the US Government of a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hello, Sixth Amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hello, Sixth Amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hello, Sixth Amendment?
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hello, Sixth Amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hello, Sixth Amendment?
Arguably this is not an example of such infringement however.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hello, Sixth Amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hello, Sixth Amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hello, Sixth Amendment?
The ones we always hear about with the MPAA/RIAA, suing grandmas and babies, are usually civil.
This one is being run as a criminal charge, which has a higher bar (Yet the government is putting together even a weaker case the the RIAA usually tries.)
We just need them to higher Carrion, he can dig their case even faster into the ground. Who knows, he might end up being able to tunnel right through to New Zealand and they can just grab Kim. =P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hello, Sixth Amendment?
Geez, I really need more coffee this morning...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hello, Sixth Amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hello, Sixth Amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hello, Sixth Amendment?
2) He's not prosecuted, he's being extradited
3) While being extradited, he's under New Zealand law. Obviously we have similar rules as well, but your constitution has nothing to do with it.
I completely support your view - that he should see what little evidence they have. I just don't think your reasoning is correct.
TL;DR Right Answer Wrong Working
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hello, Sixth Amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hello, Sixth Amendment?
Procedural Fairness (or natural justice as some call it) is far more than your 6th Amendment and conveys more rights and abilities on the accused then it ever will.
Sadly the US denies that Procedural Fairness exists and hypocritically only wants it when it applies to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hello, Sixth Amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hello, Sixth Amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: American rights and sovereignty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hello, Sixth Amendment?
It's pretty outrageous that the US is trying to charge someone living in another nation with breaking its laws, when that person was never in the US at the time of the alleged violations. It's a violation of laws in India and Saudi Arabia for me to make statements about Jesus and Mohammed being gay, pork-eating lovers that invented their respective religions as a practical joke, yet you don't see either of those nations trying to have me extradited from the US to face justice in those countries. Why should the converse be true?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hello, Sixth Amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hello, Sixth Amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hello, Sixth Amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hello, Sixth Amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hello, Sixth Amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's bad, but not that bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's bad, but not that bad, oh yes it is.
All that said if the only disclosure the New Zealand Government and American government, in this case, want to make is a single cherry picked document which in 99.99999% of extradition requests isn't sufficient evidence to determine if there is a legitimate case for Dotcom to face should he be extradited to the United States.
The court in New Zealand wants more. Particularly as, now, the warrants for the entire operation have been ruled illegal. No court in the United States would do less during an extradition hearing.
In fact, in many cases and if the request had come from any other country, that would be it, case closed, go back home Kim and have a beer. That may be the result anyway if this silliness keeps up.
The FBI is looking more and more as if it doesn't have a legitimate case civil or criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's bad, but not that bad, oh yes it is.
It's not ok for the Crown Attorny to argue on behalf of a foreign entity, that any judicial process of review in New Zealand ought to in fact be reduced to a rubber stamping ritual. It is abhorrent and unacceptable for our Crown Attorny to effectively argue to weaken the rule of law in New Zealand, least of all to give effect to a treaty to assist a foreign government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What it looks like mostly is an activist judge trying to play god, rather than someone paying attention to the law and the extradition treaties that NZ has signed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Their only reasoning is, 'we managed to bribe the shit out of the NZ officials to raid the poor guys home violently so extradite him already'·
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
that's right, somehow the US government is supposed to investigate how and why NZ officials (apparantly :P) broke NZ law in the pursuit of the interests of the US government (well, it's puppet-masters at least)
needless to say, that didn't really fly with the general public. (well, lots of people figure the USG should be the one's PAYING for it, but that's a different story.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
After all, this isn't some kangaroo court in a third world country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, no. Not even remotely correct. Because you can be charged with just about anything. And you can be held for up to 24 hours on said charge. However, that DOES NOT mean there is any evidence to convict you of said charge, much less that you actually did what you're being charged with.
Just because you're charged with something doesn't even remotely mean they have enough material to justify said charge. Sorry to inform you.
You're basically saying, "Hey, take the United States word for it and just let him go." That is as horrible a stance as just assuming guilt.
Also, I'm no lawyer. But it appears I, not one, have a better grasp of the way the law works than yourself and some of the ACs here. Then again, my dad always did say gotta know the law if you want to break the law. Not that I've broken any mind you. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, and you have just proven that you entirely do not get the point. The case is NOT being tried in New Zealand. Extradition treaties basically just say "Yes, we have charged him with a crime, and yes, that crime is over the threshold for extradition". There really isn't much more than that.
Why do you keep thinking the case is being tried in NZ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Great job, Feebs!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't see a problem with that? That a foreign government can just declare that someone has broken their laws (even though that person wasn't in the country), demand extradition, without providing any evidence or being required to present adaquate reasons?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"By definition, being charged with a crime, one that has enough material to justify such a charge, should be more than enough.
After all, this isn't some kangaroo court in a third world country."
Look at my response. Now look again at your original comment. Now look at my response again. See how that works? I responded ONLY to what you said and factually as it relates to what you said. Thus, the one not getting the point here is you. Notice how I didn't even remotely mention New Zealand? You might want to check your responses before you hit "Submit". Make sure you're replying to the right person, or make sure you make sense and aren't putting words in people's mouths.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Quite simply, Kim is charged with very serious crimes, specifically money laundering of much of the $150 million he claims the site took in.
This isn't some simple infringement case.
NZ has few options, unless they want to ignore treaties they have signed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whether you are charged with shoplifting or murder, or multi million dollar money laundering, due process applies if you are in a civilized part of the world.
The notion that rights go bye bye based on what someone alleges you've done is insanity. Anyone can be accused of anything at any time, so either rights and due process applies regardless of the nature of charges or there are no rights and there is no due processes.
A number of nations appear to have forgotten this since 9/11. A point of pride for the scummy terrorists no doubt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wonder why?
And NZ can ignore treaties with the US at any time, what do you really think the US can do rto them? Economic sanctions? BWahahahahahahaha. Oh and NZ ignore's an ANZUS treaty every day, never seen a Nuclear Warship in NZ waters for years!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, too late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Money laundering is where a criminal organisation makes money 'legal' by pedalling through a legal business and in the process disguising where the money came from.
For the charge to make sense he has to have received all of the $150 million by illegal means. Then he also has to have moved the money back into his own possession using some external company in order to hide where it came from.
For starters the vast majority of stuff available on Megaupload has been proven to be non infringing, or rather they have failed to prove that it is infringing. Secondly his company was selling a service and not files so the first point is irrelevant anyway.
The company is also very open about their profits, that is how they come to $150 million. So them 'laundering' any of it is a joke.
I tell you what, I am accusing you of money laundering. I'm gonna extradite your ass over hear so I can kick it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is probably why they've added these....colourful charges to the mix.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And the proof to justify extradition is...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We'll give you Dotcom if you'll give us all the Joint Chiefs in the Bush administration in exchange.
Don't like that idea? Then kindly fuck off. I think actually destroying many hundreds of thousands of lives is worse than storing some data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
compelling terms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, the accused has the right to challenge the extradition. Dotcom is in fact challenging the extradition.
A judge would then have to decide if the request for extradition does in fact meet the legal requirements. This is why the judge is demanding the US show evidence to validate their claims of criminal activity and that it has legal standing for extradition.
If the US cannot make a case for extradition, the judge is well within his rights to deny the request.
What don't you get?
Why do you keep thinking the case is being tried in NZ?
No one has claimed that it was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What is that, commie talk?
(jealous)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nobody is saying this, except you. What we *are* saying, and you are continually missing, is that the extradition itself looks fishy, and the NZ judge realizes this.
US: Kim Dotcom committed a crime, give him to us!
NZ: We'd like to take a look at the evidence to determine if extradition is really the right thing to do.
US: OMGWTF? We JUST told you he committed a crime! Why do you need to see the evidence? Don't you understand that we TOLD YOU he committed a crime? Now give him to us!
NZ: ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even extradition treaties require that sufficient proof (not ALL of it, just sufficent) be shown to the court to justify the extradition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is the kicker here, they have to show that they have material to justify the charge and are refusing to do so.
Just calling you pedophile doesn't mean I have the material to prove my accusation should we let your government extradite you because I have a lot of money and am calling you a criminal without me providing a sliver of evidence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But I suppose you think all countries that have extradition treaties with the US simply become kangaroo courts, denouncing all laws and rights of their own citizens?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh right, the JUDGE is trying to play "god".
How dare he question america, who fucking does that, right /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sort of like the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of America.
hmmm, that's probably not a good analogy :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Surpreme Court of New Zealand is now our court of last resort.
It was the Privy Council up until 2004 (which is actually off yonder in the UK).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please explain to everyone how a civil matter of copyright infringement became criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Answering that will also answer your question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Although not sure how that proves a civil crime becomes criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What the hell is a Tootsie Pop?
sounds rude
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UYvsk6_foc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This would not allow extradition from New Zealand, but the other charges of money laundering, conspiracy to money launder hinge on the criminal copyright infringment allegations.
So the US are essentially arguing for extradition on the basis of the money laundering charges, and those rely on the criminal copyright charges which are highly dubious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If they're not specified, they don't exist.
It's like saying "AC murdered people. We don't know whom, but we know he did it!"
Ya gotta have a corpse or corpus delecti.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The IRS is a money laundering operation.
Every major corporation is a money laundering operation.
To get extradition they needed charges that met a threshold of jailtime, there are several charges like that in the indictment of dubious quality.
And no one ever wants to comment on the emails from the cartel members claiming losses of kajillions of dollars who at the same time were asking for better access to post their content onto the holdings of Mega. If your neighbor is stealing tools out of your garage, do you go over and ask him to take pictures of your new dog?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The American bankers that robbed everybody around the world from their saving can be extradited without having to be accused of anything or showing what they are accused of?
Right you are another moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Pure reasonable logic and more so Kim Dotcom does excellent coverage of the Rugby and thats more important than a piece of paper/treaty sign with an American.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are laws in New Zealand regarding the due process when an extradition is sought under the treaty the US are seeking these extraditions under.
You know due process, that hallmark of all civilized justice systems?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's still functional but it's on a downward slide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Until then you are just another narcissistic egotist with delusions of grandeur, not unlike the US Govt.
For point of fact for purposes of Extradition the case has to be shown to have merit and all procedural fairness under NZ Laws to have been met.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> doesn't have to be tried in NZ.
But the US does have to prove there's a valid case against Dotcom in the US, and in order to do that, it has to show that there's evidence against them.
The US is basically just saying, "Trust us", and that's not something either common sense or the extradition treaty requires.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
-Have you ever seen a dollar being used by a physician in an operation room ?
-Have you ever seen a dollar driving you somewhere ?
-Have you ever captured or grown food with money ?
Money made sense in a world with large disparities as a mean to ease communication regardless of the differences. In a world where we've learned that those were not "real" differences, we no longer need money as a "bridge" between cultures, what we need is a goal so that that goal becomes our "culture". Sorry but I don't plan on passing on an ending world to future generations. I'd rather give them a world where it makes sense to live, than ask them to make sense out of living in a meaningless world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Part of the job of an extradition hearing is to determine if there is an actual case for Dotcom to face once he gets to the United States not just the FBI's word that there something there.
Nor is it really up to the FBI to decide. An extradition case is national government to national government which is where, in the end, should this start to hang on the rocks even at high tide where it will start to move forward again.
The mere fact that the FBI is only wanting to release a cherry picked, summary document to the court isn't good. That leads extradition courts and judges to think they don't have an actual case. Not that they're the only ones thinking that.
In discovery in any court you produce what the judge asks/tells you to produce. The FBI knows that. And New Zealand, like many other countries gets their dander up when an American law enforcement agency, particularly one with a reputation as poor as the FBI's refuses to do it.
If the hearing was being held in Canada there's something like a 100% chance that the extradition would have been denied almost the moment that came in. It's called go pull someone else's chain and, by the way, we're independent not your damned colony. Dotcom walks. You ain't got to case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Banana Republic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Banana Republic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Banana Republic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only they have to have an extradition where they prove they have enough evidence to do that. So far, they're batting zero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...this is news to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean that's already how they're trying to treat him.. My government really needs to stand up and apologize and give him his money back and crush this absurd circus of a case.
This is almost as bad as cops charging people with a felony for farting at them.
SHIT QUICK QUICK TASE HIM HE HAS A STINK CANNON!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"SHIT QUICK QUICK TASE HIM HE HAS A STINK CANNON!"
as
SHIT QUICK QUICK TAStE HIM HE HAS A STINK CANNON!
it's been a long day sorry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guess it's time to invade.
IIRC, extradition treaties are based upon a principle of reciprocity. This concerns me because it implies that the good old us of a would hand me over in a heart beat based upon unsubstantiated charges.
High court, low court and no court ... this will not end well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Probable cause consists of two parts, one that there was probably a crime and two, the accused person probably committed it.
Granted, probable cause isn't proof almighty that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt - that's why you have a trial. It's simply says that there's enough evidence to HAVE a trial.
Y'all people make it sound like the feds, cops or anyone else can just declare "He did something!" and it's a valid charge. That's not how it works.
I'll be the first to admit that a charge against someone doesn't mean they are guilty. People are found not guilty every day.
As far as the Kim Dotcom case goes, the feds should just punt, since their warrants were found invalid(I haven't really been following the case so I'm not sure 'why' they are invalid, sometimes warrants can be invalid for reasons that have nothing to do with the charges) and what little I have read about this case seems to point to the fact the the feds seem to have royally screwed the pooch and should just drop it, go home and chalk it up as a learning experience.
I don't know or care if he did what he's accused of, but people that have no freaking clue about the court system in the US really should stop spouting off the nonsense. It would be as embarrassing as me talking about NZ law. I don't know a damn thing about it, so I can't comment on what they should or shouldn't do or what due process should be followed there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are the idiots prosecutors not aware of the long history of that kind of an attitude costing them easy wins and letting the defendant go free? Such as how Nixon botched the case against Daniel Ellsberg so badly that the whole thing got thrown out, and Ellsberg is now free man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Given that they're willing to treat a foreign justice system like that, do you honestly think they would have any problem pulling the exact same thing and worse in an american court case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please think about what you're saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contempt of court anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ARTICLE IV
Extradition shall be granted only if the evidence be found sufficient, according to the laws of the place where the
person sought shall be found, either to justify his committal for trial if the offense of which he is accused had been committed in that place or to prove that he is the person convicted by the courts of the requesting Party.
Article iv tells us that the evidence to charge and/or convict must be sufficient. So DotCom is entitled to see the evidence the U.S. has against him, article iv is pretty clear on that.
ARTICLE V
Neither of the Contracting Parties shall be bound to deliver up its own citizens under this Treaty, but the executive
authority of each shall have the power to deliver them up, if, in its discretion, it be deemed proper to do so
Article v is pretty clear in stating that New Zealand is not bound to extradite, unless they desire.
ARTICLE X When the request relates to a person who has not yet been convicted, it must also be accompanied by a warrant of arrest issued by a judge or other judicial officer of the requesting Party and by such evidence as, according to the laws of the requested Party, would justify his arrest and committal for trial if the offense had been committed there, including evidence proving the person requested is the person to whom the warrant of arrest refers
Article x specifically addresses people not yet convicted and that the evidence needs to justify the arrest. U.S. needs to provide the evidence.
ARTICLE XII
If the requested Party requires additional evidence or information to enable it to decide on the request for extradition, such evidence or information shall be submitted to it within such time as that Party shall require.
If the person sought is under arrest and the additional evidence or information submitted as aforesaid is not sufficient or if such evidence or information is not received within the period specified by the requested Party, he shall be discharged from custody. However, such discharge shall not bar the requesting Party from submitting another request
[*12] in respect of the same offense.
Article xii clearly states that New Zealand has the right to request the evidence and to set a deadline for the evidence. If the evidence is not provided within that time, DotCom should be released.
I also looked through Article ii which details the list of offenses for which extradition can be sought. I did not see an offense that makes any sense, using a common sense interpretation. That leads me to believe that this extradition is more of a political attack. Face it, recently we have dealt with MPAA, RIAA, SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA. All of these are political and this appears to be a political character assassination. So lets examine that part.
ARTICLE VI Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances:
4. If the offense for which his extradition is requested is of a political character, or if he proves that the requisition for his surrender has in fact been made with a view to try or punish him for an offense of a political character. If any question arises as to whether a case comes within the provisions of this paragraph, it shall be determined according to the laws of the requested Party.
Article vi clearly states that if it is political in nature then New Zealand has a right to deny extradition as well.
The articles that I presented here make a decidedly strong statement that DotCom should just be released and have his properties returned. Argue that if you wish, but at the very least he is entitled to see the evidence being used against him for both extradition and evidence for the charges he will face in the U.S.
I highly encourage every single one of you to look up the treaty, familiarize yourself with it and your rights!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For example if someone is the head of an organisation that causes another country and/or govt to be shamed or lose political sway with their citizens and that organisation is legal in the country where the extradition is requested from. Then this would be classified as a political crime and would fall under Article VI. Otherwise anyone who helps Cuba for example could be extradited to the USA, whereas the rest of the civilised planet actually trades and communicates with Cuba, unlike the USA.
Whether someone is running for office or already has been elected is irrelevant under that Article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...if the evidence be found sufficient, according to the laws of the place where the person sought shall be found, either to justify his committal for trial if the offense of which he is accused had been committed in that place...
Which as I read it means that the charge that extradition is being sought after also must be a crime in the country where they are. If that is the case, then the evidence must be seen as it will needed to prove if Kim Dotcom has committed a criminal offense under New Zealand law, and not just a crime under US law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a shame
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's a shame
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's a shame
And a vote for Romney is a vote for the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's a shame
That's why I'm saving my vote for The Great Pumpkin and his VP, Twilight Sparkle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obama/Biden
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Obama/Biden
Not the president we deserve, but the president we need.
-- Batman for president 2012
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Russia To Sue USA For Stealing Its Policy Of:
Think about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idiots
Welcome to true US Justice. What with the entire world watching them they should be on their best behaviour with "Yes Judge, No Judge, whatever you want Judge". Not though what we see here when the FBI just keeps messing it up.
Then we can see that it is Kim Dotcom who has been doing everything right including following court rulings. As a result the court has relaxed their control and showing that Kim Dotcom can be trusted to fight the charges against him.
Well had I been in change of the FBI I would be totally peed off now and I would demand they get their act together. Not that I want the FBI to win but Kim Dotcom should have the chance to prove his innocence and not just get off the hook because US Justice is a bunch of morons who cant get their game together.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Idiots
First off, he doesnt live in the U.S. so the U.S. Government has NO right at all to just take him into custody. U.S. Government does not translate to World Police.
Second off, Articles iv, v, and vii of the extradition treaty clearly address the need for substantial evidence to be presented to extradite. The U.S. Government has been refusing to provide requested evidence.
Third off, the U.S. Government is refusing to return data to the legitimate owners. Poor form U.S. Government, just poor form.
Fourth off, the U.S. Government can kindly fuck off. You are not the World Police and you need to reread the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights that you so frequently shit on and wipe your ass with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Idiots
First off, he doesnt live in the U.S. so the U.S. Government has NO right at all to just take him into custody. U.S. Government does not translate to World Police.
Second off, Articles iv, v, and vii of the extradition treaty clearly address the need for substantial evidence to be presented to extradite. The U.S. Government has been refusing to provide requested evidence.
Third off, the U.S. Government is refusing to return data to the legitimate owners. Poor form U.S. Government, just poor form.
Fourth off, the U.S. Government can kindly fuck off. You are not the World Police and you need to reread the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights that you so frequently shit on and wipe your ass with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please correct me if I'm wrong here....
2. Defendent at no time operated business in US
3. Defendent business at no time was based in US
4. Servers were at no time based in US
5. Defendent not accused of actually stealing IP
6. Defendent accused of hosting a service which MIGHT have had stolen IP on it
7. ALL evidence taken by US and not begin provided to NZ or defense
8. Given the above, how does NZ determine defendent broke a law in a country he wasn't in using a service not based there and under laws where the actions defendent being accused of aren't illegal in the US?
Is Carreon involved in this somehow?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please correct me if I'm wrong here....
4.The servers were based in the US.
5.It's difficult to be certain what they are alleging as they seem more interested in using colourful language like "Mega Conspiracy" breathlessly with much clutching of pearls than they are in actually explaining what they hell they are about.
6.The Crown (New Zealand) will still have their own copy of the data I expect, unlike Mr Dotcom and his co-defendents.
8.New Zealand has no place to determine that, but rather is concerned with whether or not extradition is merited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please correct me if I'm wrong here....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Please correct me if I'm wrong here....
Which is why it's crucial to the US case to show that the laundering and conspiracy charges have merit. Of course those charges rely on the legitimacy of the copyright charges, which in turn are highly dubious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heil Plutocracy!
Does the government do good works? Al Capone operated soup kitchens for good PR. What people don't realize is that he operated them by restaurants that didn't pay him protection money thereby bankrupting them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The truth hurts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The leadership in America don't know where to go, it doesn't have a clear vision, it is lost, they can't see the right from the wrong and that is a problem, a really fraking problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
answer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Activist Judge
What she is, is one of the few judges in the country who are more than willing to make sure that the law applies equally in her courtroom.
Unlike the overly credulous judge who issued the original search warrants(*) based on allegations without adequate evidence. Does anyone else find it interesting that judge's name is not in the public arena?
(*) Warrants which were over-broad, and yet the police and FBI went so far beyond them that even the NZ judiciary blinked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]