DOTCOM saga - updates

[tomos]

I can see both sides above.

Getting political below I suppose, so I'll stick it in a spoiler:

Spoiler

I often wonder about the idea that we couldnt say it or do it, because they would have done this or that or the other. Before/in case you take this as an attack on your post Iain: this struck me strongest in the last years in the way that Obama didnt stand up to the banks when he was first elected.

There is so much in this world that is done or not done because of fear. I'm not naive enough to think that we or our governments should be fearless - but currently it's the opposite that's happening. I'm heading into basement territory if I'm not there already, so I'll shut up.

[IainB]

Yes, you are quite right, I feel sure. But there is a difference between a politician caving in and reneging on his election promises because it is politically expedient to do so, and confronting a bully who is about to punch your lights out and do you some serious injury.
Something done out of fear is generally likely to be corrosive and destructive of the self and of one's self-respect - but there's a lot of it about. Like RC churchgoers, for example, who go to confessional because - well, if they don't, they believe they will be damned, because God loves you and is your friend and wants you to confess and pray for forgiveness, or something.
But there's a difference between a fear of a threat of something imagined like that and a threat of something more existential and that is really very likely to happen. Lange knew from New Zealand's economic history (e.g., why it even has a role in the EU CM in the first place) that the economic excommunication threatened by the French was not an empty threat but something that they could and probably would pull off if they lost patience with him, and he couldn't take that risk. It would have been politically reckless and could have led to economic suicide. So he caved in. No option really.
Similarly, for example, where you live under Islamic Sharia law, apostasy is a sin against Allah and is punishable by death. You know it's going to happen, so you don't do it. You stay in the Islamic faith. Allah is your friend.

So, imagine having this friend in the shape of the US, who is a bit like Allah in that you had better do as he wants, or else.
We would all be wise to be very, very afraid of such a friend.

I don't suppose that those police/SAS/GCSB personnel who screwed up or committed perjury in the Dotcom case did so because they were basically stupid or dishonest. I suspect they more than likely had high professional standards and integrity and were likely very good at their jobs. But you can really act out of character and make all kinds of professional mistakes if you come under unbearable pressure from a powerful friend to do something that you know is intrinsically wrong.

[40hz]

confronting a bully who is about to punch your lights out and do you some serious injury.

-IainB (December 07, 2013, 08:39 PM)

A polite exaggeration?

What exactly is the US threatening? To send in the drones? Order a cruise missile strike? Put "boots on the ground" and demonstrate some "shock and awe" to the Kiwis? Stand by idly and allow China to invade the The South Island and cart its population off for forced labor?

I hardly think so.

The US is not omnipotent. Not by a long shot.

So, imagine having this friend in the shape of the US, who is a bit like Allah in that you had better do as he wants, or else.

If that's a euphemism for "being bought" or saying the powers that be in NZ have "sold out" however, isn't that an entirely different story?

Because I can agree NZ's current government sold itself and it's people out on this one. Possibly with the best of intentions. But certainly for all the wrong reasons. And definitely with the lamest excuse if "arm twisting" on the part of the Obama administration is the best it could come up with.

I guess I'm a bit old-school when it comes to something like this. To wit: there are always reasons why somebody may - or may not - do something. And of those reasons, some may very well be "very good reasons."

But at the end of the day, all that really matters is what was - or wasn't - done. That's the diamond in the equation. The reasons given are merely its price tag.
 

[IainB]

Yes, of course I am exaggerating.
And I think you are quite right where you say:

..But at the end of the day, all that really matters is what was - or wasn't - done. ...

-40hz (December 07, 2013, 11:09 PM)

From an NZ perspective, in the Dotcom case, the judgement was clear that there has been illegal action by the State - the police/SAS and GCSB - and it certainly looks like the police committed perjury. Oops.
We are all interested to know when and how  these matters will be properly addressed by the judiciary.
(Sounds of crickets chirping.)

[IainB]

Well, no new developments in the fiasco, but apparently Dotcom was planning a big party to set up an NZ Political party, as reported in an NZ Herald report (below). But the party was called off, for apparently important reasons - see below. Note the bits I have emboldened towards the end.
We shall see whether he can pull it off.
(Copied below sans embedded hyperlinks/images.)

Irked Dotcom takes a swipe at Key
By Jonathan Milne
5:30 AM Sunday Jan 19, 2014

Party plans are on hold, but mogul keen to lead NZ in internet economy
The launch of the Internet Party has been postponed until Feb 20. Photo / Getty Images

Internet mogul Kim Dotcom has bitterly criticised Prime Minister John Key, after he was forced to postpone the launch of his political party and cancel a birthday party for more than 10,000 guests.

In an exclusive interview, Dotcom told the Herald on Sunday of his plans for the huge birthday party set for tomorrow night.

More than 25,000 people had registered for tickets (though the venue, Auckland's Vector Arena, has capacity for only 12,000). "The Party Party was to be a four-hour show leading up to my 40th birthday," he said, "starting with a 30-minute live set to perform six songs from my upcoming GoodTimes album.

"At midnight I would have celebrated my 40th birthday with a full Vector Arena. We asked everyone to dress in white for the laser and light show, including black lights which would have made everybody glow in the dark."

Now Dotcom will launch his album and his new music download site, Baboom, tomorrow, as planned, with an extensive advertising campaign on radio and on the back of more than 100 buses.

But the launch of the Internet Party - his tilt at political power - has been postponed until February 20.

His birthday party has been cancelled. "I was sick to my stomach for two days. I could not eat or sleep. It feels so bad to let so many people down. I decided to have no birthday party at all this year. Instead we are going to celebrate the birthday of our son, Kimmo, at the beach. We share the same birthday and he will be 5 years old on January 21."

The Electoral Commission had warned Dotcom that throwing a free party for thousands of New Zealanders might constitute "treating" - essentially buying - people's votes. "If I continued with the event I would lose the Internet Party. If I cancelled the event I would disappoint 25,000 Kiwis who registered for tickets. The political party and the future of New Zealand is more important to me than one night of fun."

Dotcom said that instead of pouring the Internet Party's resources into winning one seat, as Act, United Future and the Conservatives had done, his party would try to break the 5 per cent threshold to guarantee him at least seven MPs.

"We ask voters for a chance to impress them. I know how to make New Zealand a leader in the internet economy which will lead to more jobs and prosperity."

Labour leader David Cunliffe was cautious about the prospect of a Labour-Dotcom coalition. "I think there's a wide range of people I can work with," he said. "I wouldn't rule it out but I'm not ruling it in either."

Key has already dismissed Dotcom's party. Dotcom hit back yesterday: "John Key and his partners have lost the connection with the people and their original purpose. I would never have gone into politics if it wasn't for the abuse that I have experienced. I have been a victim of numerous unlawful actions by both the New Zealand and US Governments. There's something seriously wrong with a government that engages in this kind of activity to please another government.

"When the Internet Party makes it into Parliament, the NSA Five Eyes spy network will lose one eye. We intend re-evaluating the relationship between New Zealand and the US Government."

- Herald on Sunday

Some people (not me, you understand) might say that any government of a country or group, such as NZ or the EU, that tries to unFriend/unLike the US will pay for it dearly - and they would know it - so it's an economic/political suicide that's not going to happen, but I couldn't possibly comment.
Interesting times.

[IainB]

...From an NZ perspective, in the Dotcom case, the judgement was clear that there has been illegal action by the State - the police/SAS and GCSB - and it certainly looks like the police committed perjury. Oops.
We are all interested to know when and how  these matters will be properly addressed by the judiciary.
(Sounds of crickets chirping.)

-IainB (December 08, 2013, 04:37 AM)

Well, the crickets are still chirping - except it's mid-summer in NZ now, so really all you can hear are the cicadas - but if perjury wasn't enough, it looks as though meanwhile there's been another "Oops!" by the NZ government. This time it's the turn of the GCSB (again), who, apparently not content with accidentally-on-purpose carrying out illegal spying on NZ citizens, have now apparently accidentally-on-purpose deleted some/all of the evidence that was to be used to ... prove that GCSB had been carrying out illegal spying, in a court of law.

Dearie me, what a kerfuffle! And such a puzzle too - I mean, how would one go about proving that the illegal spying had been going on if the proof had been deleted?   

GCSB deleted key evidence - Dotcom
1:12 PM Tuesday Feb 4, 2014

BREAKING NEWS: The GCSB spy agency seems to have deleted evidence relevant to my case against the GCSB for illegally spying on NZ residents.
    — Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) February 3, 2014
____________________________

The spy agency which illegally monitored Kim Dotcom's communications has admitted deleting information needed in
the upcoming $6 million damages hearing, according to the tycoon.

Dotcom last night tweeted the claim, saying: "The GCSB spy agency seems to have deleted evidence relevant to my case against the GCSB for illegally spying on NZ residents.''

He quoted Crown lawyers as saying "some communications have automatically aged off. We propose to include ... those communications which are still recoverable''.

Dotcom claimed lawyers acting for the GCSB told him the material had "aged off'' the system, suggesting it had automatically deleted.

He also posted a video of Prime Minister John Key, who is in charge of the agency, saying: "This is a spy agency. We don't delete things. We archive them.''

Mr Key's office said he was speaking specifically about allegations the GCSB deleted a video of him talking about Dotcom inside its top secret building.

"He stands by what he said,'' said a spokeswoman.

The claim that evidence was deleted has brought fresh calls for an independent inquiry into the agency, described today by the Labour and Green parties as operating outside the law.

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman said: "If it is true, then they are a rogue agency operating in contempt of the law and courts.''

Information sought as part of a court process is meant to be preserved - and doing otherwise was "basic contempt of court'', said Mr Norman.

He said Mr Key was attempting to distance himself from his statement in Parliament, saying the comments were made "in the most general terms''.

"He has misled the House.''

He said an independent inquiry into the GCSB would be part of an coalition negotiations after this year's election.

Labour associate spokesman on security issues Grant Robertson said he was concerned about the implications of Dotcom's claims.

"If true, it speaks of an agency that has operated where they don't believe they need to pay attention to the law.'' He said people would ask why they should "trust an agency like this if it's not going to comply with the law''.

He said Mr Key needed to "come clean'' about what he knew about the deleted information.

The inquiry into the GCSB by former Cabinet secretary Rebecca Kitteridge, the incoming Security Intelligence Service boss, referred to material being "aged off'' its systems.

The process was referred to when detailing how the GCSB dealt with failure to follow its own law or rules. She wrote "the information concerning the target will be deleted within GCSB if it has not already 'aged off' the system''.

Speaking in Auckland later, Mr Key said Dotcom was "completely and utterly wrong''.

"I can't talk specifically about Mr Dotcom's evidence because it's before the courts. But what I can say is the claims that he's making that there's some kind of inconsistency with how we treat things is quite wrong,'' he said.

"Essentially, legal documents that are created by GCSB are held in their system and archived for evidence. Raw intelligence has to actually, by law, age off the system if it's no longer relevant or required,'' he said.

"The great irony is, if you cast your mind back to the GCSB debate, there were many people arguing that the GCSB shouldn't hold on to data for as along as it does. Now these same people seem to be saying `ah well, we should be holding onto this data forever'. They're just trying to join dots that cannot be joined and confuse people.''

This amazing theatre-farce is being acted out in front of the probably by now bewildered NZ public who would presumably have thought, up to this point at any rate, that on the whole NZ was about as far as one could get from a State that was corrupt and repressive. Given the apparent and surprising disappointments on those fronts, the last bastion of freedom and justice would be the judiciary and the courts of law. Let's hope they are up to the task.

Some people (not me, you understand) might say that, unless he can pull a rabbit of considerable integrity out of a hat, Prime Minister John Key looks like he could be at risk of becoming dog tucker come the next election, but I couldn't possibly comment.

[IainB]

Now the NZ judiciary have apparently reversed the decision that the Dotcom raid was illegal, though the FBI's taking of evidence is apparently still deemed as being illegal. One has no idea what the heck is going on or how long it may be before the decision(s) are changed again. PM John Keys seems to be wanting to make little comment and is keeping the thing at arm's length (as he should). No mention yet of how the apparent perjury by the police is to be addressed.
Here's a a very good summary from Stuff.co.nz
(Copied below sans embedded hyperlinks/images.)

Dotcom raid legal, FBI taking evidence not
AIMEE GULLIVER AND KIRSTY JOHNSTON
Last updated 14:24 19/02/2014
Fairfax NZ

The Court of Appeal has ruled that the raids on Kim DotCom's mansion were legal - however the removal of electronic goods was an unauthorised breach.
Kim Dotcom
RAIDS WERE LEGAL: Though the warrants to raid Kim Dotcom's Auckland mansion in 2012 were flawed, the Court of Appeal says they were still valid.
Related Links
Court of Appeal judgment: Her Majesty's Attorney-General v Kim Dotcom
Crime
Man dies in river fall Lundy retrial delayed Dotcom raid legal, FBI taking evidence not Police not called over possible $15m fraud Top court throws out killer's claim for damages Sorry mum, your car's been confiscated Sikh leader escapes jail Sex worker heard about Mob 'tax' Stabbing was self defence, jury finds Home detention for fatal race

Police raids on Kim Dotcom's mansion in 2012 have been declared legal, but FBI removal of electronic information seized in the search was an unauthorised breach, the Court of Appeal has found.

    Court of Appeal judgment: Her Majesty's Attorney-General v Kim Dotcom (.pdf)

Dotcom's legal team was reviewing the rulings, and would likely seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court over the validity of the warrants, the internet tycoon's lawyer Ira Rothken said.

Police executed search warrants on the properties of Dotcom and computer programmer Bram van der Kolk on January 20, 2012, seizing 135 electronic items including laptops, computers, portable hard drives, flash storage devices and servers.

In a judgment released today, the Court of Appeal said the warrants were executed at the request of the United States Department of Justice which is seeking the extradition of Dotcom, van der Kolk and others to face trial on a number of charges including breach of copyright and money laundering involving "substantial sums of money".

The High Court ruled last June the search warrants executed on Dotcom's mansion at Coatesville in Auckland's rural north, were invalid because they were not sufficiently specific.

Justice Winkelmann ruled the search warrants "did not adequately describe the offences to which they related" and "authorised the seizure of such very broad categories of items that unauthorised irrelevant material would inevitably be captured".

No offence was identified in the warrants which merely referred to "breach of copyright" - an offence in the United States, but there is no criminal offence of breach of copyright in New Zealand.

The warrants also did not stipulate which country's laws the alleged offence was committed under, Justice Winkelmann found.

The other defects went "to the heart of the warrants and could not be properly categorised as minor", she ruled.

The attorney-general appealed this decision, acknowledging the search warrants were "far from perfect", but that leading authorities required the court to adopt a "common-sense approach taking into account the particular circumstances of the case".

In its judgment today, the Court of Appeal said that while the warrants were defective in some respects, the deficiencies were not sufficient to mean they should be nullified.

Dotcom and the other respondents would have understood the nature and scope of the warrants, especially in light of their arrest warrants – which were not defective - and the explanations given to them by the police when the properties were searched, the Court of Appeal found.

In these circumstance, no miscarriage of justice occurred.

"[We] are satisfied that the defects in the search warrants have not caused any significant prejudice to the respondents beyond the prejudice caused inevitably by the execution of a search warrant," the Appeal Court judgment said.

In relation to the electronic information, the court said the police wrongly permitted the FBI to take to the United States copies of some of the electronic items seized in the raid.

In June the High Court ruled the removal of the copies of the electronic items was in breach of the solicitor-general's direction to the commissioner of police that the items were to remain in the commissioner's "custody and control" until further direction.

The Appeal Court dismissed the Attorney-General's appeal on that matter, and held the removal was unlawful and contrary to the solicitor-general's direction.

None of the other issues relating to Dotcom currently before the courts were dealt with by the Court of Appeal's judgment today.

POLITICAL REACTION

Prime Minister John Key said the case would drag on well past the election.

"What the Court of Appeal has found is that the police search warrants were valid. The only point I would make is there are going to be a lot of twists and turns in terms of litigation with Mr Dotcom. These matters are highly likely to be appealed so we'll just leave it at that."

He said the ruling proved the police were correct when they said the mistakes they made in relation to the raids were "form over substance".

"One of the major arguments were that the police acted in an invalid way that's just not the finding of the Court of Appeal.

The case would likely not be done before the election, he said.

"If somebody wants to appeal an extradition and take legal action at every nook and cranny then it can take a very long time."

Key would not say whether the finding increased the likelihood of Dotcom being extradited.

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman, who last week called the case against Dotcom flawed and said he would move to block any extradition, refused to say whether the verdict had changed his view.

The case had a long way to go "and I'm not going to get into every twist and turn of it".

"It's not really a matter for me, obviously it's between the Crown and Kim Dotcom."

His comments last week were based on the information available to him at the time and he would not reconsider those until the court process was complete.

"There will no doubt be new facts arise over the course of the year ... Let's see what happens over the course of the year and then we'll see what's going on."

DOTCOM EXPLAINED

Kim Dotcom's legal case is made up of four separate strands in four different courts and it's got a long way to go yet, so here's a bluffer's guide.

1. Disclosure: Kim Dotcom's lawyers want to know what evidence the US Government has against him. The US says "disclosure" of evidence isn't required for an extradition hearing. Although the High Court ordered the evidence to be handed over, the Court of Appeal overturned that decision. This argument is now awaiting a ruling by the Supreme Court.

2. Search and Seizure: Last year, the High Court ruled the search warrants used in the January raid on Dotcom's house were too broad, and therefore illegal. Today, that was overturned and the Court of Appeal ruled that while the warrants were defective, they were legal. However, the Appeal Court judges agreed data taken from Dotcom, "cloned", and given to the FBI was unauthorised. Dotcom is likely to take the search warrant decision to the Supreme Court as overturning it could help with his extradition case.

3. Compensation from police and the GCSB: This is related to the search and seizure. Dotcom's team are effectively suing police and the spy agency for $6m for illegally monitoring his communications, then searching his home and taking his property. While today's judgement undermines part of this case - the use of unlawful warrants - Dotcom could still sue for the spying, the unlawful removal of data, and what he believes were "over-the-top" tactics and human rights breaches by the police during the raid.

4. The Extradition: Originally set down for March 2013, due to the myriad of complications in the case, the extradition has now been moved to later this year, with further delays likely. Usually extradition hearings are relatively straightforward, but don't cross your fingers in this case.

TIMELINE

2010

Kim Dotcom, an internet businessman with old convictions for hacking and insider trading (wiped under Germany's clean-slate law), applies for New Zealand residency. Rents mansion of Chrisco founder Richard Bradley in Coatesville.

November: Granted residency.

2011

Early 2011: FBI asks NZ to help investigation of Dotcom's file-sharing business Megaupload.

December 2011: GCSB spies on Dotcom at request of police.

2012

January 20: Armed raid on Dotcom's home. He, Finn Batato, Mathias Ortmann and Bram van der Kolk arrested. FBI accuse him of half-billion-dollar copyright theft. He denies it.

February 16: Ofcanz and GCSB debrief; police raise concerns surveillance may have been illegal because of permanent residency status.

February 22: Dotcom is granted bail.

February 27: GCSB's lawyer concludes surveillance was lawful.

June 28: In the New Zealand High Court, Justice Helen Winkelmann rules the raid on the Dotcom mansion was illegal.

August 10: Ofcanz's Detective Inspector Grant Wormald tells High Court about a "mystery group" of officials at

December 14 meeting.

August 16: Deputy PM Bill English signs certificate suppressing GCSB involvement in Dotcom raid. The fact gets out anyway.

September 13: GCSB says it became aware the spying was illegal.

September 17: Key launches an inquiry, headed by Inspector-General of Intelligence Paul Neazor.

September 24: Crown files memorandum confirming GCSB involvement. Key goes public.

September 27: Key apologises to Dotcom after Neazor says GCSB surveillance was illegal as Dotcom is NZ resident.

September 28: Greens' Russel Norman lodges complaint with police over GCSB.

October 1: Cabinet Secretary Rebecca Kitteridge begins review of GCSB.

All year: Numerous legal hearings in NZ and US over bail conditions, the legality of the raid and attempts to extradite Dotcom.

2013

January 20: Dotcom launches his new "Mega" file-storage business, with a celebrity-studded party.

March 7: The Court of Appeal rules Dotcom can sue the GCSB and NZ police, upholding a previous High Court decision.

April 3: Scrutiny of GCSB head Ian Fletcher reveals he got the job after an approach by Key. The pair were childhood friends.

April 8: Fairfax's Andrea Vance reveals details from leaked copy of Kitteridge's report into GCSB, which says more than 80 people may have been illegally spied on.

April 9: Kitteridge Report officially released.

June 9: CIA whistleblower Edward Snowden reveals Prism surveillance programme by American NSA. Dotcom talks up links between GCSB and NSA.

July 3: Dotcom appears at select committee hearings on proposed law to let GCSB spy on NZers. Dotcom and Key trade insults.

July 30: Dispute over evidence disclosure reaches the New Zealand Supreme Court.

August 21: New Zealand Government rushes through law change giving GSCB powers to spy on NZers.

2014

January 15: Dotcom unveils a logo revealing his political venture, the Internet Party.

February 19: The Court of Appeal deems the raids on the Dotcom mansion to be legal.

- © Fairfax NZ News

[IainB]

Here it comes.
(Copied below sans embedded hyperlinks/images.)

Dotcom Heads to Supreme Court to Appeal Raid Decision
    By Andy     on May 6, 2014

The argument over whether or not the raid on Kim Dotcom's mansion back in January 2012 was legal is heading to the highest court in New Zealand. Yesterday the Supreme Court gave Dotcom permission to appeal a February Court of Appeal ruling that overturned an earlier High Court decision that the raid was unlawful.

Following the huge raid on Kim Dotcom’s mansion in January 2012, questions started to be asked about the legality of the warrants used to launch the operation.

In mid 2012 a High Court judge found that the warrants were not only overbroad but also illegal, providing a big boost to Dotcom’s extradition battle prospects with the United States.

However, this February the Megaupload founder suffered a setback when the Court of Appeal overturned the earlier High Court ruling. While it was agreed the warrants contained flaws, the judges found that overall the warrants were legal.

But it’s not over yet.

The Supreme Court has now granted Dotcom leave to appeal the Court of Appeal ruling from February.

“The Supreme Court granted us permission to argue the validity of search warrants used in this raid,” Dotcom announced on Twitter.

The hearing is set for June 11 to June 12.

[IainB]

Well, it's now July 2016 and Dotcom apparently still hasn't been extradited from Kiwiland to Merika. Lots of appeals etc.
I guess, like well-matured cheeses, "These things take time.".

Meanwhile, prompted by this comment on DCF under Re: Interesting "stuff":

... Megaupload is coming back and your old account will still work ...

-Arizona Hot (July 12, 2016, 04:14 PM)

- I watched the video and then found this following and rather interesting video interview and report by VICE (they're usually pretty objective):
Kim Dotcom: The Man Behind Megaupload - https://www.youtube..../watch?v=gMxhIfG0MpY

[Deozaan]

I recently heard Kim Dotcom is no longer behind Mega: somehow someone else got 51+% of ownership so he's abandoning/abandoned it and working on a new project. But I have no sources to back it up. Anyone else know anything about this?

Edit: I realize now that it's possible the video linked above may have explained everything I just said, and that relaunching MegaUpload may be the "new" project I heard about. I haven't watched the video yet, as it's late here and I'm heading to bed.

[IainB]

Mega is incorporated as an NZ company, and its articles of association, AGM decisions and shareholder changes, etc., are detailed on the NZ Companies Register: https://www.business.govt.nz/companies
It's a relatively transparent system that the public can access, and which needs to be easily accessible so that directors of NZ companies can update their company's status - e.g., file an Annual Return.

I was looking at the Mega details about a year ago, and it was evident that there had been a series of decisions by the Board to  accept significant changes to the ownership, and someone with a Chinese-looking name (could have been a Kiwi) appeared to have become a majority shareholder, with Dotcom progressively reducing his share to what looked like (from memory) a non-controlling or insignificant stake, whilst others had increased their shares/proportions. One shareholder in NZ seemed to have been allocated a small stake. I surmised that this was possibly as part of an employee share-incentive scheme. I did at the time wonder what was going on, as it certainly seemed that Dotcom was either being removed, or was removing himself, from any controlling interest on the Board. I wondered whether it was in anticipation of his deportation.

[wraith808]

I recently heard Kim Dotcom is no longer behind Mega: somehow someone else got 51+% of ownership so he's abandoning/abandoned it and working on a new project. But I have no sources to back it up. Anyone else know anything about this?

Edit: I realize now that it's possible the video linked above may have explained everything I just said, and that relaunching MegaUpload may be the "new" project I heard about. I haven't watched the video yet, as it's late here and I'm heading to bed.

-Deozaan (July 13, 2016, 02:58 AM)

https://www.rt.com/n...relaunch-kim-dotcom/

https://mega.nz/#blog_40

[Renegade]

https://www.rt.com/n...relaunch-kim-dotcom/

-wraith808 (July 13, 2016, 07:24 AM)

From there:

“I’ll be the first tech billionaire who got indicted, lost everything and created another billion $ tech company while on bail,” he tweeted.

Original:

https://twitter.com/...s/752288313252257793

Still definitely one of the top bad-asses on the Internet. Right up there with John McAfee.

And he just doesn't stop:

https://twitter.com/...s/762200591170887680

Madman!

https://twitter.com/...s/761407503041073152

Absolutely wild.

[IainB]

Well, it's now July 2017 and Dotcom apparently still hasn't been extradited from Kiwiland to Merika. More appeals etc.

@40hz made a prediction:

Prediction: Kim Dotcom is going to be offered a "deal" where he'll be required to plead guilty or "no contest" to some very minor charge(s), pay a fine, be required to make some half-assed public apology to the music/movie industry, and promise to never ever do it again - despite the fact he didn't do anything provably illegal under the law as it's currently written.
In return he'll be required to waive his right to seek any future legal recourse for the incident. And probably consent not to discuss or reveal any of the details about the deal he was offered.
Be interesting to see if he ends up taking it.
____________________________

-40hz (November 17, 2012, 06:31 AM)

To which my response was:

@40hz: I suspect that you might have summarised the situation pretty accurately. It will be interesting to see how close your prediction is as events unfold.
____________________________

-IainB (November 17, 2012, 08:30 AM)

So far, however, it seems to be not panning out that way.
Interestingly, it seems that belated attempts to suppress the facts (by making them a state secret) of the GCSB spying on Dotcom have blown back on the current NZ Prime Minister, Bill English, who was acting Deputy Prime Minister for Prime Minister John Key when the latter was out of the country at the time when the issue of legality of the the GCSB spying was being questioned.
(NZ Herald report copied below sans embedded hyperlinks/images.)

Court papers claim Bill English acted 'unlawfully' on Dotcom
25 Jul, 2017 6:58pm  5 minutes to read
Kim Dotcom says new legal action will be taken after a court judgment stated he had been spied on longer than previously admitted.

Photo / Brett Phibbs

Bill English's role in trying to "cover up" spying on Kim Dotcom faces scrutiny after new evidence shows the internet entrepreneur was under illegal surveillance longer than previously admitted.

The Prime Minister has refused to comment citing ongoing legal action - unlike predecessor John Key, who made his initial public apology to Dotcom during a slew of High Court proceedings and went on to answer questions.

But the legal action which disclosed the extended spying also targets English specifically, saying he acted "unlawfully" when he signed a ministerial certificate intended to bury the spying operation forever.

A High Court judgment made public last week included a key detail which stated surveillance on Dotcom went on longer than previously sworn testimony from spies had admitted.

Previous sworn testimony to the High Court has seen Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) staff stating they spied on Dotcom until January 20 2012 - the day of the police-FBI raid which saw Dotcom and three others arrested.

But the latest High Court judgment said the spying continued until March 22 2012 and has drawn focus back to those involved at the time the GCSB first admitted illegal surveillance.

English was at the centre of it and documents filed with the High Court seeking compensation for the illegal spying include allegations English "acted unlawfully" when the spying was about to come out.

Prime Minister Bill English has refused to comment on the spying allegations, citing ongoing court action.
Prime Minister Bill English has refused to comment on the spying allegations, citing ongoing court action.
The original claim against the GCSB stated "the Honorable Bill English acted unlawfully in signing the ministerial certificate suppressing all details of the GCSB's involvement" in the police raid on Dotcom.

English came to be involved when the possibility of spying emerged in 2012 during a court hearing in the Dotcom case.

In the weeks leading up to it being made public the GCSB went to English, who was acting Prime Minister at the time because Key was out of the country, to try to have its involvement made a state secret.
________________________________________________

ARSTechnica also have an interesting take based on the above news report, with the post: NZ judge: Our spies surveilled Kim Dotcom for 2 months longer than admitted.

As a New Zealand citizen, I am really saddened to read of this, because, whereas I had previously considered Bill English to be a straight-up-and-down Kiwi politician and a good choice, it now seems that the actions of this new Prime Minister (who was appointed earlier by PM John Key when the latter resigned) might well fail the Cadbury ethics rule-of-thumb:

"The rule of thumb is that, if a business process can not stand the hard light of scrutiny, then there is probably something unethical about it." - Sir Adrian Cadbury (Chairman of the then Quaker family-owned Cadbury's) in his prize-winning article on Business Ethics for Harvard Business Review circa 1984.
__________________________________

Voters of principle could certainly encounter some difficulty supporting or voting for a political candidate and party leader who was perceived to have been shown as being less than ethical or hadn't been squeaky-clean in his involvement in an apparent legal fiasco (the Dotcom raid) that continues to generate a bad - and possibly worsening - smell, as it works a tortured path through the (hopefully objective) NZ judicial system.
The judicial system itself is also likely to be under some scrutiny here by concerned citizens, because it's not so long ago that the justices decided NZ was now mature and ethical enough and had sufficient legal brains to hold its own NZ Supreme Court of final appeal, having previously relied on the UK's Privy Council in that role.

Not only that, but also, over the years, the prodigious and persistent Kiwi judicial reformist and vexatious activist irritant of the judiciary, one Vincent Ross Siemer, has - like a solitary "White Knight" - consistently shone that unwanted hard light of scrutiny on the flaws in the NZ judicial system and on any debatable actions/decisions of the judiciary, per his blog (Kiwis First News), books and reports - e.g., refer Judicial Entitlement and Oppression Beg Reform, and Kiwisfirst.co.nz 2014 New Zealand Judge Survey (PDF).

[IainB]

February 2018, and the Dotcom case continues to work its tortuous path through the judicial system, and I continue to remain unimpressed with NZ's general performance in this matter so far.

I today spotted a rather good summary of the Dotcom history and legal issues. Worth a read, and also a watch/listen to the Mega Upload music video - which is quite cleverly done. (That sounds like Macy Gray's somewhat gravelly voice towards the end.)
Kim Dotcom: The Copyright Case that Should End but Won't

[IainB]

March 2018:
I nearly missed the reference to Dotcom in the post copied below. It touches on the very points that I and generally many other fair-minded Kiwis might be concerned about - i.e., what happened to Dotcom, and the media's apparent lack of investigative reporting and seemingly deliberate under-reporting of the real issues in that case. I have emphasised the bits where the post makes points about this. I have put the full post text into the quote, so as not to lose the very relevant context within which the points are being made.

The post is on the Kiwisfirst blog which consistently investigates and seeks to shine the hard light of scrutiny on issues relating to the judicial processes of the country - e.g., lack of transparency in due process.
(Copied below sans embedded hyperlinks/images, some of which have content materially related to the post.)

Is New Zealand’s Lack of Transparency the Next ‘Me Too’ Movement?
tags: New Zealand Legal news
2018-03-05
Vince Siemer
Last week was one Robert Muldoon likely thought would never happen.  Secret government cover ups spilled out like sewage into the Hauraki Gulf after an Auckland rain.  This metaphor has long been true.  In each case it is the mainstream reporting that is new.
In the past week New Zealanders were informed the Courts hold secret hearings that are additionally not listed on official court lists, and that an assassination attempt on Queen Elizabeth II occurred in Dunedin in 1981.

Chief High Court Judge Geoffrey Venning (pictured) issued a statement on Friday saying the latest secret trial – a two day preliminary hearing held 28 February and 1 March 2018 in the Wellington High Court before Justice Robert Dobson – raised national security issues and, on this basis was required to be conducted in secret.  Venning J stated it was an oversight the case was not listed on the court docket as it should have been.  An oversight in the NZ courts which is all too common if not habitual.

Tellingly, Venning only made this statement/admission because Wellington Barrister Michael Bott railed against court secrecy in the press in a rare display of press conscientiousness that got past the editors.  Such criticism is also extremely rare from lawyers who practice in New Zealand.

Dr Frank Deliu told kiwisfirst Justice Venning’s explanation is suspect because the judgment relating to this secret case had been originally published and the presiding judge gave no valid reasons why this case should now become secret.  The judge simply agreed to a belated request from the Chief Justice and Attorney General after private consultation well into the proceedings.  Dr Deliu pointed out secrecy was not limited to secret hearings and keeping the case off the court docket; Dobson J anonymised the applicant’s name because she asked for it, hardly the legal test.  The judge even reissued an anonymised version of the original judgment.

The genesis of the latest case is a cancelled New Zealand passport.  Court security staff and NZ police were not trusted to keep people out this week.  Stern warnings to those who attempted to enter the court came instead from men in dark coats whose authority remains unidentified.

In a story appearing the same day in the (U.K.) Daily Mail, it was reported NZ Police will ‘re-examine’ a 36 year-old cover up of an assassination attempt on Queen Elizabeth II during her official visit to New Zealand in October 1981.  At the time NZ Police claimed the gunfire spectators heard was not gunfire but a sign falling over.  Police had already arrested the perpetrator: 17-year old Christopher John Lewis was caught with written details on how he planned to kill the Queen.  Secret justice being what it is in New Zealand, Lewis was ambiguously charged and convicted of possession of a firearm and discharging it in a public place.

In a country where murderers routinely serve less than 10 years it is telling that Lewis killed himself 16 years later in his Mt Eden prison cell while still serving his public discharge of a firearm conviction.

Queen Elizabeth’s security detail were not made aware of the close call on her life in New Zealand.  It came out years later in leaks from original investigator and Dunedin detective Tom Lewis (no relation) that the Queen’s life was likely saved because the teenager’s view of the Queen’s route from his fifth floor sniper’s nest was largely blocked by other buildings.

There are elements of the story which are pure Kiwiana on how far the State went to conceal the national fraud for decades.  On the Queen’s subsequent 1995 visit Lewis was given a holiday from prison to the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, complete with spending money, just in case the snooping British press caught wind of the fraud and attempted to pay a prison visit to the firearm-discharging Lewis.

The retrospective explanation by the government after being caught out was Lewis was sent abroad at the time to ensure he would not make another attempt on the Queen’s life.  If true this does not speak well about New Zealand’s high security prisons.

Geographic isolation and lack of any independent press remains the formula to control the national narrative in New Zealand, but the ability to control the narrative may be changing.  The only two ‘mainstream’ press entities covering New Zealand (Fairfax and N.Z.M.E. (the ‘M’ stands for media and the ‘E’ stands for entertainment)) have been asking judges for the past year to overturn a ruling by the Commerce Committee and allow them to merge.  They claim their market is being eroded by the bloggers.

Last month one of NZME-owned New Zealand Herald’s front page stories was that Kim Dotcom’s new wife has sex with him.

Meanwhile NZ governmental actions and rulings which impact all New Zealander’s lives are largely unreported.  It is these often secret and rarely reported actions that have ripped many law-abiding citizens’ lives to shreds as collateral damage in the broad quest for a gentler public image.  Those who expose corruption in New Zealand are routinely run out of the country or have their lives ruined.  Many commit suicide.  No one is immune.  For years New Zealanders have accepted this as our fate, as sheep led quietly to the slaughter.   But many, albeit slowly and portentously, are waking up to the fact that speaking out against personal belongings being seized and families ruined by government-sanctioned secrecy is the antidote to such persecution and an essential element to restoring personal liberties.

As Venning’s public statement demonstrated last week, only exposing secret justice puts the perpetrators on the back foot.

The post Is New Zealand’s Lack of Transparency the Next ‘Me Too’ Movement? appeared first on Kiwisfirst.

Copied from: Kiwisfirst News - http://www.kiwisfirs...rency-next-movement/

[IainB]

2018-03-26: Very interesting and informative post at techdirt: Kim Dotcom Wins Human Rights Tribunal Case Over Kiwi Government Withholding Info
The post includes a full scrolling view of the 82-page judgement of the Human Rights Tribunal.

Also very interesting is that there seems to have been little mention of this in the NZ press:

• Just a brief non-investigative post about it in the NZ Herald: Crown refusal to give Dotcom information on him had 'no proper basis' Human Rights Review Tribunal rules, accompanied by a totally irrelevant photo trivialising Dotcom, and no copy of the Tribunal's ruling.
• I could find no mention of it on Scoop.co.nz
• I could find no mention of it on Stuff.co.nz

The apparently dead hand of the media's so-called "journalism" in evidence.

So, the somewhat depressing conclusion here could seem to be that NZ citizens may sometimes find themselves better-informed (and in more timely fashion) about what is happening in NZ by reading techdirt, rather than by relying on local media/"journalism".

The techdirt article opens with:

It's really quite incredible how, at nearly every turn, the New Zealand government has managed to mess up the legal case against Kim Dotcom. The raid on his house was later declared to be illegal, using invalid warrants. Evidence that was seized from his home and illegally turned over to the FBI was ordered to be returned. Oh, and then there was the whole bit about conducting illegal surveillance on Dotcom, deleting evidence of that illegal spying, and ordering officials to "bury" information about that illegal surveillance to avoid embarrassing the Kiwi government.

And now we have the latest: A Human Rights Tribunal in New Zealand has declared that the New Zealand government violated Dotcom's rights in withholding information from him.

...and ends with...

Either way, the book of examples of just how incredibly the New Zealand government has f#ck#d up everything about this case at every single turn has now added yet another chapter.

___________________________________

There are some pointed and concerned comments following the techdirt post, for example, including these, :

• Comment: Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2018 @ 5:07am
  "Either way, the book of examples of just how incredibly the New Zealand government has f#ck#d up everything about this case at every single turn has now added yet another chapter."
  
  And how many more times of the NZ government and US have to be exposed of doing illegal things in this case before someone in the NZ government or US comes out and say "We could of got away with it it is want't for those pesky kids".
  ___________________________________
  
  
• Comment: nerd bert (profile), 26 Mar 2018 @ 6:51am
  Malice vs. Incompetence
  "Either way, the book of examples of just how incredibly the New Zealand government has f#ck#d up everything about this case at every single turn has now added yet another chapter."
  
  Normally you should never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.
  
  This is not a normal case and I think we can rule out incompetence.
  ___________________________________
  
  
• Comment: Ninja (profile), 26 Mar 2018 @ 11:09am
  The thing is, even if you don't sympathize with the guy (and I personally don't), even if he actually did wrong things (I'm still not sure), everything that has been done to strip him the means to defend himself and to deny him due process gets you cheering on him and hoping he prevails in courts. And we are talking about the problems with NZ law enforcement. When you add the US things get much uglier.
  ___________________________________

[wraith808]

The thing is, even if you don't sympathize with the guy (and I personally don't), even if he actually did wrong things (I'm still not sure), everything that has been done to strip him the means to defend himself and to deny him due process gets you cheering on him and hoping he prevails in courts. And we are talking about the problems with NZ law enforcement. When you add the US things get much uglier.

-IainB (March 27, 2018, 06:55 AM)

This.  So much this.  The governments try so hard to strip away our rights and protections that their power is supposed to exist upon as the foundations of our governing.  To see someone actually take them on and make progress is something that the average person concerned about their own rights has to appreciate.