Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
DOTCOM saga - updates
IainB:
...sorry if I somehow offended...
-40hz (March 07, 2013, 11:48 AM)
--- End quote ---
Don't worry, you didn't offend me. I'm very thick-skinned anyway and might not have noticed even if you had intended to offend me.
I spelt out the facts as best I could, because what you wrote seemed to indicate that you might be unaware of them all, and I figured others might be too, so I just tried to pull together all the most relevant stuff in a way that might make sense to a reader who was unfamiliar with the context.
* The New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987 - and some implications:
SpoilerI'm not sure even now whether you got the point that the kerfuffle regarding the "non-ban" was a self-imposed ban on US Naval vessels by the US Navy, attributable to the enactment of the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987, and the US Navy's reluctance to comply with that Act, coupled with their wish/expectation to have the NZ government make a special exception so that the US Navy did not have to comply with the Act.
The NZ government at the time - and now - could not agree to making any exceptions to the Act it had so cogently put together, so the Act applied equally to all ships of all types and under all/any nation flags that might want to enter NZ harbours. It was realised that it might make it difficult for some visiting warships from other countries, but it was a rational Act, and, notwithstanding, one would expect that any visiting ship to a country would respect the laws and sovereignty of that country.
The Act supported NZ's primarily pastoral economy, which has a huge international and government-authorised dairy monopoly (sort of "co-operative") called Fonterra, which is the single biggest company and dairy produce export-earner in the NZ economy, generating on it own more than 7% of GDP. I recall reading somewhere that Fonterra controls approximately 30% of the world supply of dairy milk powder.
The clean, green nuclear-free slogan is arguably at best a marketing puff to establish/tart up and differentiate a marketing image for all this. Other sectors sharing in benefit from this image would probably include: deer meat (venison) and velvet (young antlers), beef and lamb meat, Kiwifruit (Chinese gooseberries), various shellfish farming, the wine sector, and other pastoral/horticultural produce. I presume GM foods would definitely be a no-no in such a context.
Ironically, some of the greatest environmental damage - including pollution of land/waterways and destruction of natural bush - seems to come from the milk/dairy industry, and all sorts of local bylaws seem to have had to be put in place to limit this damage.
Fonterra's operation is so big that it must be difficult to manage its environmental footprint, wherever it operates in the world.
* SACCWG: You probably can't afford to disregard/exclude the significance of the SACCWG, when trying to understand the drivers behind the Dotcom raid in NZ (the drivers in the US seem pretty clear).
IainB:
This is interesting. Once again, NZ Justice looks like it is doing its job.
NZ Herald post. (Copied below sans embedded hyperlinks/images.)
Dotcom wins right to sue
By Kurt Bayer KurtBayerAPNZ
5:26 PM Thursday Mar 7, 2013
Kim Dotcom has won the right to sue the Government for illegal spying.
A Court of Appeal judgement released today has ruled in favour of the internet mogul and will let him sue the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) alongside New Zealand Police.
Dotcom, Finn Batato, Mathias Ortmann and Bram van der Kolk are defending accusations of mass copyright infringement, online piracy, and money laundering through their Megaupload file sharing website.
A decision by Chief High Court judge Justice Helen Winkelmann last year to allow the GCSB be sued and to allow Dotcom to seek compensation from the Government agency, as well as the police, was challenged by the Attorney-General.
During the High Court case, it emerged that the GCSB had been illegally spying on Dotcom prior to the raid on his Coatesville mansion, on behalf of the FBI, who now wants the Megaupload millionaire extradited to face trial in the US over copyright infringements.
The Attorney-General challenged Justice Winkelmann's decision to order the GCSB to cough up documents that outlined the extent of their spying.
It also challenged the decision to bring the GCSB into court proceedings as a party, as well as saying it was inappropriate for compensation claims to be added to a judicial review.
Now, the Court of Appeal has ruled that the GCSB will be added to the case, and allowed the compensation claim to be heard during the April hearing. While the appeal judges emphasised the importance of keeping judicial review proceedings "simple and prompt'', and that it was "not usually appropriate'' for reviews to include compensation claims, there was no absolute rule.
But the Attorney-General did win its appeal against the High Court decision for the GCSB to hand over all of its spying evidence against Dotcom and his Megaupload associate van der Kolk.
The ruling means that Dotcom's legal team will only be told what information exists and to where it was sent, but will not receive copies of the documents. The 24-page judgement criticised the Crown for the way its handled the compensation case and for failing to follow proper procedures.
A final comment urges both parties to cooperate so that the issues before the High Court are "determined as expeditiously as possible''.
No award of costs were made which the judges said "reflects the fact that each party has had a measure of success in this court''.
Last week, the Court of Appeal quashed a decision to force the United States Government into handing over its evidence against Dotcom in its internet piracy case.
Dotcom's US lawyer Ira Rothken tweeted today: "We look forward to holding GCSB spy org accountable doing so will not only protect @KimDotcom's rights but the rights of all NZ residents.''
--- End quote ---
No word yet on what is being done re the apparent perjury by police.
But some real concerns in this (unrelated case) report:
'CONSERVATIVE' REMARK IRKS SUPREME COURT JUDGES
40hz:
No word yet on what is being done re the apparent perjury by police.
-IainB (March 09, 2013, 04:25 AM)
--- End quote ---
I would be extremely interested in seeing what's done about that more than anything else actually.
If NZ could make something happen over that growing problem - and render a decision that would actually stick - I'd put their legal system ahead of the rest of the world's at this point.
In the last 5 years it's become fairly apparent to even the most casual of news watchers that police perjury is becoming a standard tactic in law enforcement. And that's something that needs to be stopped before the legal system loses whatever credibility it has left.
Hope springs eternal. Go kiwis! :Thmbsup:
------------------------
@IainB - tried reading the article your link pointed to. Got this:
:)
IainB:
...@IainB - tried reading the article your link pointed to. Got this:...
-40hz (March 09, 2013, 05:50 AM)
--- End quote ---
Sorry, bad link. I had pasted the link wrongly. Fixed now.
Renegade:
Sigh...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/08/kim-dotcom-nsa_n_2838915.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
:(
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version