Friday, July 6, 2018

CRIM DOT CON ... THE STORY SO FAR AND LOOKING AHEAD

The District Court orders that CDC can be extradited to the United States to stand trial.

The High Court upholds the decision on Appeal.

The Court of Appeal upholds the decision on Appeal.

CDC sez he will appeal that to the Supreme Court.   It is moot whether or not the Supreme Court will grant 'him' leave to Appeal.   On balance I suspect they will.

If the Supreme Court upholds the original decision a final decision is in the hands of the Minister of Justice.   The word around the the traps is that CDC has a 'nuclear bomb' in the form of approaches made by Labour/NZ First/Green Party apparatchiks to him in the lead up to the 2014 election to help Minister Little focus his mind on whether or not to approve his extradition.

I do approve of blood sports.

27 comments:

Lolitas brother said...

Hardly worth having a Judicial system if the Minister can do what he likes or is influenced to do.

The Veteran said...

LB ... in extradition matters the Minister has the final say. Extradition is governed by the 'Treaty on Extradition between the United States of America and new Zealand' signed on 12 January 1970 and came into force on 8 December 1970.

Bryan said...

Why does he bother with all the legal process when there is no way a Minister of this Govt will agree to letting him be deported?

Psycho Milt said...

Two reasons:

1. Because there's no guarantee the Minister would decide in his favour. It's likely he would, but not a given.

2. Because winning a legal process would prevent the opportunities for political propaganda that a ministerial decision would open up. You'll note Veteran's already preparing the ground - if Little refuses to allow Dotcom's extradition, it will be presented as being because Dotcom has some kind of corrupt leverage over the current government. The more obvious reason, that it would be manifestly unjust to allow extradition, wouldn't get a look-in.

For both those reasons, Dotcom should and probably does prefer to win it in the courts if he can.

The Veteran said...

PM ... Little should refuse extradition on the basis that were he to approve it would be manifestly unjust.

I guess it matters not that the District Court, the High Court and now the Court of Appeal disagree with that proposition. Were the Supreme Court to say the same and Minister Little decide to overrule their decision, that would certainly be a 'courageous' (as in Sir Humphrey) political act,

I agree with your comment that it would allow the Opposition to claim CDC had exerted some kind of corrupt leverage over the Government. Four Courts, including the highest Court in the land, vote 'Yes' ... Little votes 'No' ... easy to join the dots.

Anonymous said...

It will be a tough call for Andrew Little knowing that most jurists hold the modern American system of plea bargaining comparable to the medieval European system of torture.

There is, of course, a difference between having your limbs crushed if you refuse to confess, or suffering some extra years of imprisonment if you refuse to confess, but the difference is of degree, not kind. Plea bargaining, like torture, is coercive. Like the medieval Europeans, the Americans are now operating a procedural system that engages in condemnation without adjudication.

Rack up as many charges as possible in order to plea bargain them down to a mere twenty years in jail or face the risk of a death sentence......yes fifty years in a Federal Pen is a death sentence.

I hope common sense and compassion play a part in this ongoing saga.

I await with eager anticipation Veterans response to the be-medalled ones latest rant on the Southern Ocean without bothering to consult ships logs.

Lord Egbut

Psycho Milt said...

I guess it matters not that the District Court, the High Court and now the Court of Appeal disagree with that proposition.

Correct. The courts are there to administer the law, not justice. It can be entirely legal to deliver a person into the hands of his enemies, but also manifestly unjust. That's why the final decision is in the hands of the minister in the first place.

Johno said...

There has to be exceptional circumstances for ministerial intervention. The only exceptional circumstances here would be the leverage CDC may hold over certain politicians.

Snowflake said...

Yeah, nah, Jonathan Coleman (Immigration Minister who bullied officials into granting Dotcom a visa) has declared victory and retired, so not much leverage.

The Veteran said...

Snowflake ... wot about all the Labour/NZ First/Green Party 'heavies' (including MPs) who beat a path to CDC's Coatsville mansion in the lead up to the 2014 election.

Just there to offer 'him' moral support ... yeah, right.

The Veteran said...

PM ... the Courts are there to dispense justice according to law. In my experience the system is weighted in favour of the accused. Certainly the criminal standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' imposes a high legal bar.

Politics ain't about justice. It's 'to the winner the spoils'. Little's decision (if it comes that that) will be based on politics and not justice.

Ghost Of Greenwood said...

I for one hope Dotcom gets to stay on. It would be an awesome middle finger to the Hollywood moguls who instigated it and the idiot NZ politicians who ignored official advice and let him stay because he had a fat wallet. A huge waste of time and money.

The Veteran said...

GoG ... I too hope that Little bails him out ... but for different reasons than yours.

Psycho Milt said...

Be careful what you wish for - if Little refuses extradition he'll most likely cite the Key government's illegal activities and general mistreatment of Dotcom, and no doubt publish a lot of information backing it up that National would rather he didn't. You might be better off the Supreme Court finds in his favour.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Milt, to which particular illegal activities and alleged general mistreatment to you refer?

Was the fat fraudster held is a cell with a couple of mob Bros or sumpin'?

Anonymous said...

I see Walter is fan of the rule of law....It is "alleged" fraudster who has not broken any NZ law apart from a bit of misdirected form filling....something we have all done over the years. Talking of the trail to Coatsville wasn't Banks and Key involved in the pilgramige?

Lord Egbut

Psycho Milt said...

Milt, to which particular illegal activities and alleged general mistreatment to you refer?

Do you not read the news?
1. Illegal: the raid on his house and the handing over of his hard drives to the US government (https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10816121).
2. Illegal: interception of communications (https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11895912).
3. Mistreatment: mounting a paramilitary raid on someone accused of copyright infringement (https://www.wired.com/2012/08/kim-dotcom-raid/).
4. Mistreatment: breach of privacy (https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2018/03/kim-dotcom-wins-human-rights-tribunal-case-declares-extradition-bid-over.html).
5. Mistreatment: Police claim they can't comply with court judgement to reveal information they have on Dotcom because they lost it, presumably because claiming the dog ate it was too cliched (https://twitter.com/kimdotcom/status/1011384656531341312).
6. Crown tries to imprison Dotcom for breaching bail, despite having no evidence - timeline, Dec 1 2014 (https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/kim-dotcom-ultimate-timeline-ck-p-179008).

I expect there's more but I can't be arsed looking for it. The current government will have full access to all the dubious goings-on that resulted in this clusterfuck, so National had best hope there's no reason to go looking into it.

Psycho Milt said...

Talking of the trail to Coatsville wasn't Banks and Key involved in the pilgramige?

Yep. The donation Banks requested from him was split in two, which meant Banks didn't have to declare it. What Key's involvement was we don't know - but then, we don't know what the Labour MPs' involvement with Dotcom was either but that doesn't stop right-wingers from building fantasies off it, so fair do's - feel free to speculate about Key's involvement all you like

The Veteran said...

PM ... wrong, wrong, wrong and you know it. Banks went there certainly but not as an MP. It was after he had left parliament and when he was standing for the Auckland Mayoralty. It is a matter of record he paid a price for that with his trial and conviction subsequently overturned on Appeal. It also cost him his marriage.

Key never went there ... why should he ... CDC had declared war on Key.

What we do know is that CDC has claimed in the run up to the 2014 election he was taking to MPs. We also know that both Labour MPs Clare Curran and Shane Jones (then a Labour MP) by their own admission visited him at Coatsville. For what purpose ??????????

But, as I said in another comment and if it ends on on Little's desk I really hope he will decline extradition ... but not for the reasons you advance.

Psycho Milt said...

Banks went there certainly but not as an MP.

I know. Just answering Egbut's question.

...both Labour MPs Clare Curran and Shane Jones (then a Labour MP) by their own admission visited him at Coatsville. For what purpose ??????????

For what purpose do MPs talk to rich people? I don't think that's any great mystery - to try and get money out of them. Key even industrialised the process and called it Cabinet Club.

The Veteran said...

PM ... errrrrr ... the Cabinet Club was for National Party members. So, you're saying CDC may have bought Curran (your favourite Labour MP - not) and Jones ... interesting ... how many more CoL MPs did he buy and how will this play out.

As I said and assuming the Supreme Court finds against CDC I really do hope that Minister Little declines his extradition.

Wayne Mapp said...

I presume this case will go to the Supreme Court. If they say extradite, I am pretty sure that is what the Minister will do.

Unlike other commenters on this blog, I do not think politics will have any part to play.

KDC has been able to argue every conceivable point before the courts, more than any other litigant in the history of our courts.

I can't see any Minister of Justice, who is acting with a modicum of reason, doing anything other than confirming the courts decision. For instance for the Minister to seriously suggest the US Federal Court can't be trusted to do justice would plunge our US relationship into a deep dark hole. It would be just about the grossest insult that the NZ govt could do to the United States. No-one can seriously suggest that the US court system is not independent or that it does not give a well funded litigant like KDC the fullest opportunity to argue his rights. So any other option of the Minister other than confirming the NZ SC decision is a complete hiding to nothing.

If on the other hand the SC allows KDC to stay, well that is the end of the matter.

Psycho Milt said...

So, you're saying CDC may have bought Curran (your favourite Labour MP - not) and Jones ... interesting ...

Nope, I'm saying the reason politicians talk to rich people is because they're cadging for donations. You're the one suggesting we should read something dodgy into it, albeit we should only read something dodgy into it when your political opponents are involved.

The Veteran said...

Wayne ... thank you for your comment. My only question ... does 'modicum of reason' and Andrew Little necessarily go together. You will recall the Labour Party interns scandal run out of Little's Auckland Office by Matt McCarten on Little's payroll ... with Little claiming he knew nothing of it.

Anyone with a modicum of reason must have known.

Psycho Milt said...

Wayne Mapp: people used to think that no NZ minister would dare insult the US by refusing to host visits by nuclear-armed ships, too.

There are various circumstances in which US courts can't be trusted to do justice as we'd recognise it, eg anything involving drugs, anything involving the death penalty, anything involving complainants whose wealth and political influence far outweighs the defendant's, and cases that involve draconian prison sentences for relatively trivial offences. Those last two are very relevant in Dotcom's case. It might turn out to be legal to hand Dotcom over to his enemies, but it would also be manifestly unjust to do so, in which case I'd expect a Minister of Justice capable of recognising the meaning of his job title to take an interest.

Wayne Mapp said...

PM,

I think such a move would cut deeper than the nuclear ships ban. A Minister of Justice saying that a person being extradited to the US can't expect a fair trial is a pretty gross affront to their system of government, and the fairness and independence of their courts. Basically if KDC can't be extradited to the US, no-one can.

I simply don't see the US judicial system as you seem to do. It is one of the most respected in the world, in terms of its independence and the rights of the defendant.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Vet

"...My only question ... does 'modicum of reason' and Andrew Little necessarily go together. ..."

You took the words right out of my mouth. Only this morning it occurred to me this government resembles a kindergarten with unlimited supplies of lollipops but no adults present.