December 2012, and maybe some Christmas cheer for Dotcom and co, in the shape of a "stay of execution" - of sorts. This is according to an nzherald news item:
Dotcom extradition case delayed until August(Copied below
sans embedded hyperlinks/images. My emphasis.)
Spoiler
Dotcom extradition case delayed until August
5:01 PM Wednesday Dec 19, 2012
The extradition bid to force Kim Dotcom to the United States has been further delayed and will not be heard in court until August.
The alleged internet pirate was originally expected to fight extradition in the months after his arrest in January.
Complications revealed in the investigation, including illegal spying on the Megaupload millionaire prior to the raid on his mansion, had pushed the hearing to the first half of next year.
The courts confirmed today that Dotcom's four-week hearing had been set down to start on August 12.
It is expected to run until September 6.
He face allegations of money laundering, online piracy, racketeering and mass copyright infringement.
With appeals likely to follow any initial ruling on extradition, the case could extend into 2014.
Meanwhile, the Green Party says it has been advised by the police that an investigation into whether the Government Communications Security Bureau's surveillance of Dotcom was legal has been held up by the bureau becoming a party to his legal proceedings in the High Court.
The police wrote to Greens co-leader Norman today to say they expected to give him an update on the investigation early next year.
Information and disclosure related to the court cases were impacting on the technical processes in the police investigation, the police reportedly told Dr Norman.
Police are investigating after Dr Norman asked them to establish whether the bureau breached the Crimes Act through its surveillance of Dotcom.
"While we understand the difficulties involved in the court case proceeding while aspects of the GCSB's involvement are under investigation by the police, this investigation must come to a conclusion in its own right,''
Green Party Co-leader Metiria Turei said.
"Our spies are subject to the laws of this land. They must be held accountable by the police and the courts when they violate those laws.
"The police, being the ones who called in the GCSB and who are now in court with the GCSB against Dotcom, must take extra effort to ensure the independence of their investigation into whether GCSB's illegal spying broke the Crimes Act.
"I take this letter to mean that police are taking such issues seriously, and are formulating measures to make sure the public can have confidence in the robustness of their criminal investigation,''
Mrs Turei said.
- APNZ
To try to make sense of things, my analytical approach is to summarise what seem to be all the salient Dotcom news reports so far, and including the latest news item above, which I have done here:
- 1. The police had apparently (QED) carried out an unwarranted (i.e., illegal) raid in the shape of the Dotcom raid, and had thus effectively and by default seriously compromised and/or prejudiced the legality of their own actions in this matter, both during the raid and from that point onwards.
- 2. Prior to the raid, the police had engaged the services of GCSB and possibly other SS ("Secret Service") agencies.
- 3. The GCSB (SS) services were provided to the police prior to, and (possibly) during and post the raid, and - for all we know - may still be being provided in some official/unofficial capacity.
- 4. The Prime Minister declared - apparently unequivocally - that he had known nothing of Dotcom or of the imminent raid, or that GCSB involvement had been approved by his Deputy in his absence, or that he had been informed about the matter subsequently until GCSB informed him directly, some time after the event. Teflon-coated.
- 5. After the raid, it was progressively revealed that the GCSB services had been provided - and illegally at that - so the GCSB had thus effectively and by default seriously compromised and/or prejudiced the legality of their own actions in this matter, but also, by association and complicit action, the legality of the police actions (as the police were the ones to have engaged GCSB to carry out this illegal act in the first place).
- 6. After the raid, it was revealed by a senior New Zealand police officer in an internal police publication that details of the raid itself had been transmitted live, online and in realtime via telecomms channels to the FBI HQ in the US, where he happened to be so that he could watch the proceedings in company with US FBI officers. The mind boggles.
- 7. Evidence given by Detective Inspector Grant Wormald, the police officer who commanded the raid on the Dotcom mansion is being questioned by the court, and it seems that he may have knowingly committed perjury. Evidence he had given about possible "live footage" of the raid "contradicted" earlier evidence given during the hearing.
The police were ordered to provide evidence from the senior New Zealand police officer in the US who told an internal police publication that he "monitored" the raid from FBI headquarters.
Mr Wormald is also facing questions about other testimony after he assured the court there was no surveillance other than that carried out by police. The GCSB's illegal spying operation later emerged.
- 8. In response to the Greens party co-leader Dr. Norman's request (he had asked them to establish whether the bureau - GCSB - breached the Crimes Act through its surveillance of Dotcom), the police wrote to him on 2012-12-19 to say they expected to give him an update on the investigation early next year.
Curiously, despite the police and GCSB having apparently acted in complicity and having effectively compromised and/or prejudiced the legality of their own and each others' actions (QED), and despite the fact that both parties are now engaged as the State in a court action versus Dotcom, Green Party Co-leader Metiria Turei has indicated in press statements that she seems to expect the police to carry out a proper and balanced investigation:
"I take this letter to mean that police are taking such issues seriously, and are formulating measures to make sure the public can have confidence in the robustness of their criminal investigation''
Yeah, right.
This amazing statement brings to mind memories of the the sorts of loopy imaginings I used to have recounted to me in the sixties by our strange, acid-popping hippie neighbours in Kensington, London, before they ended up in hospital with hepatitis, liver damage and brain damage, and being treated for drug addiction. It seemed impossible to get a rational thought out of them, no matter how hard the poor creatures tried.
This case had already become a monumental fiasco/clusterfark of the first magnitude, and a political time-bomb, and with each new step/revelation it just seems to get worse.
The police and GCSB have demonstrated themselves in a very poor light indeed, and the PM seems to have been clueless as to what the heck was going on, and apparently had been deliberately uninformed on this important matter by his deputy.
As to the amazing statement:
"...confidence in the robustness of their criminal investigation", it has to be some kind of a cynical joke, surely?
None of this could possibly impart confidence in the electorate that any of the above parties - and
especially the police - could be trusted to manage their way out of a wet paper bag, let alone make an independent, objective, transparent and robust investigation into such a foul-up as this, in which
the police would be investigating themselves, after having apparently been complicit with GCSB in illegal actions.
The only authority that so far seems to have remained objective and open from the start of this case is the judiciary.Probably the only thing that could satisfy any sane member of the NZ electorate at this stage would be to have a Royal Commission of Enquiry.
However, the judicial proceedings are in train, and if they are left to get on with it, the justices
should be able to continue to an appropriate finish - including a judicial enquiry - in an objective and open manner, in line with the standard they have already demonstrated that they can set and follow. Maybe by then an RC Enquiry might be generally acknowledged as being unnecessary.
This could be an interesting test of the integrity and mettle of the NZ justices and of the NZ justice system, now that it has removed itself from under the former highest court of the land, the British Privy Council, using the
Supreme Court of New Zealand instead and as set up in 2003.
Recent Posts
