Kim Dotcom seizures 'null and void' In an astonishing blunder, New Zealand’s Crown Law Office and its police commissioner have admitted to a ‘procedural error’ when they seized cash, cars and other property from Megaupload chief Kim Dotcom. According to the New Zealand Herald, Justice Judith Potter of the High Court has declared the first restraining order under …
I thought it a bit funny that the police seized all his property considering he was only being arrested for extradition and not for a criminal case in NZ. And even then, I'm sure they could only sieze property that was going to be used as evidence in a criminal case or could be proved to be from the proceeds of a crime. With extradition there is no need for property seizure since the crime would have been committed outside of NZ. But then I'm no lawyer.
NZ and the USA have had an extradition treaty since 1970 ..
The crime must carry at least a 12 month possible jail sentence in the foreign country and in NZ
I don't quite understand how you see that as "the folding of yet another country (NZ) to their will (USA)" ? If the situation were reversed, with NZ seeking extradition from the USA, would the US then be " "the folding of yet another country (USA) to their will (NZ)" ?
Apparently NZ has a similar law to the one Kim violated in the USA .. with at least a 12 month maximum sentence
It would seem the more important issue are the laws themselves .. and that both NZ's and the USA's politicians are bought off by corporate copyright holders, and IMO, copyright / piracy law violation should only carry civil penalties and no seizure of a person's general assets allowed prior to conviction
at least in the USA, if the cops screw up on the search and seizure side in a criminal , the accused will almost always walk (because the evidence can not be admitted) and get their stuff back .. we'll see what happens in the NZ courts on this next week ..
at least since 1990 , NZers have had a Bill of Rights similar to the US Bill of Rights
"I don't quite understand how you see that as "the folding of yet another country (NZ) to their will (USA)" ? If the situation were reversed, with NZ seeking extradition from the USA, would the US then be " "the folding of yet another country (USA) to their will (NZ)" ?"
Of course not. The US would tell them it was an infringement of the citizen's rights and that they can therefore just piss off. You didn't think that treaty was a two-way street did you?
'at least since 1990 , NZers have had a Bill of Rights similar to the US Bill of Rights'
Up to the point where these rights, in the US, are something the authorities have to work around and bend over backwards to avoid tripping over whereas in NZ the government trumpeted it was graciously handing down to its subjects, some things its can safely ignore if it needs to.
Normally the cops are given a pass (up to a point) on "procedural errors" so it could be they weren't happy with the way they have been assisted by FBI
How, precisely, is it the US' fault that the NZ police couldn't follow their own internal procedure?
I mean, beat up on us all you want for being evil bastards and taking over the whole world etc etc, but it's a bit rich to make us take the fall for the NZ fuzz failing to do their homework as well.
".....denied Dotcom a chance to mount a defense, the judge said"
So - denying an individual their basic rights under any judicial system worth the name is now "a procedural error"? Perhaps they thought that NZ had adopted the Saudi justice system for a while - maybe the bloke should think himself lucky he hasn't had any bits chopped off.
"Bama is a dummy"
Another victory for civilized discourse. I mean, *I'm* convinced. I had been a supporter of the President, but upon the recent revelation that he is, in fact, a dummy, I was forced to reevaluate my political and policy view from the ground up. And it turns out that it's really Bachmann who's - sorry, no, that it's Perry - No, no, no, of course not, Ron Paul is the man for... hang on a minute, it's - yes, it's Herman Cain! Yes, Herman Cain, who - he did what? Good Lord. No, of course not, the real man who epitomizes my newfound political alliance is Newt Gingrich! No, I'm serious! And - hang on, that's not right either, it's - yes, no, Santorum? OK, I guess, yeah, Rick - no, it's Mitt Romney of course! I can enthusiasti... I can say with convinction... I am certain that Mr. Romn... It's inevitable that... I guess... I mean, if that's the best we can...
OK, I'm a supporter of President Obama again. Phew.
At any rate, is there some conversation involving American politics which, if it -must- involve Barack Obama in some tangential manner, can avoid referring to him as "Odumba" or "Hussein Obama" or "Bama" or "I harbor an intense and personal hatred for this man which is not adequately explained by politics but is most certainly not racial no absolutely not never I have black friends"?
NO!!! WAIT!!! JON HUNTSMAN--
There are many such conversations, but none of them involve the sorts of racists and fascists who reflexively scream "RACIST!" when The Big 0's Communist/Marxist/Racist policies are pointed out.
*Accusing a white police officer who teaches the race awareness course of racism for following proper police procedure when a break-in is reported at a black man's house.
*Overturning long standing creditor and bond holder priority in favor of paying off union goons in bankruptcy court.
*Facilitating gun running to Mexican drug cartels and the murder of a US law officer under three separate ATF operations before trying to cover it up in a sham even Nixon wouldn't have tried.
*Dismissing an already successful prosecution for voter intimidation for a black man in a 90% black majority district because he was attacking white people and they deserve it.
*Re-writing, in contradiction of existing law, the loan terms for a politically connected solar energy company so that American taxpayers would be liable for all of the loan.
*Against the will of the American people implementing a Socialist healthcare system, including offering blatant bribes such as The New Louisiana Purchase and the Corn Husker Kickback.
Oh, and let's not forget my personal favorite:
*Voting with Barney "The Congressional Page Scandal" Frank to block Bush's attempts (which probably would have been too late anyway, but at least were an attempt) to head off the 2007 banking collapse, then blaming it on greedy corporations and Republicans.
As near as I can tell in my 36 years of political observation, the biggest difference between Republicans and Democrats is that no matter how bought they are, Republicans can occasionally be embarrassed about the corruption and forced to do the proper thing. No chance of that with a Dem.
I find it difficult to believe you've been observing politics for 36 years when your fact-checking indicates that you were born yesterday.
Your witless screed is precisely the kind of blind hatred I referred to in my post, and your topping that irony with "I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever I say bounces off me and sticks to you" content, is either depressing or amusing depending on your viewpoint.
Follow that up with requisite proclamation that Democrats are ALWAYS 100% EVIL AND STUPID AND CAN NEVER EVER DO ANYTHING RIGHT EVER BECAUSE THEY'RE DEMOCRAT EVIL PEOPLE WHO HATE THE UNITED STATES etc. and you have classic party-hatred vilification.
Don't worry, though, Tom - I'm sure that if you guys work hard enough, you can indeed finish dividing the USA into two spiteful, angry camps of people who would rather die than admit the other has even the tiniest hint of merit.
One nation, indivisible, right? United we stand? We must hang together or surely we will hang separately?
Maybe repeat those lines a few times in the morning before you get your anger in gear. Maybe remember the guys who wrote them and spoke them. Do you think they'd back up lies, invective, and divisiveness intended only to *win* at the other party's expense, damned the consequences for the country? Do you remember that George Washington wasn't a member of a political party?
Well, if he were around now, how would you judge him? Would you even be able to?
Yeah.
Thanks. Everyone is grateful that you US wankers bring your noxious domestic politics into every thread and forum everywhere regardless of topic, location or reason.
There should be an adjunct to Godwin's law called "Blank Reg's Observation" that states "As an online discussion involving Americans grows longer, the probability of a pointless and irrelevant domestic US political argument breaking out approaches 1."
You can be certain that if there is an online discussion about making goat's cheese in Patagonia, there will be some retarded sack of ignorance who will say that overgrazing on the semi-arid ranges is a direct result of Obama's socialist health policies, when in fact the desertification of vulnerable grasslands is clearly the result of the corrupt relationships between Republicans and corporate interests in the banking industry!
Here's a clue Tom 13 (you forgot to AC your 2nd post), none of us give a flying crap about what you think of Obama! Nor do we give a second flying crap about how Republicans are destroying America.
We don't care, it was irrelevant to the topic of the article, and we'd all be grateful if you would confine yourself to browsing American IP addresses in future, and thereby contributing positively in your small way to the international opinion of American users of the Internet by your absence.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
