Media darling Kim Dotcom appeared in the Court of Appeal in Wellington yesterday, The Crown is challenging a High Court decision relating to evidence in the case against the "internet millionaire".
So we can't help but wonder; on one hand, Mr Dotcom wants his "day in court" so that he can prove to the world that Megaupload and the other Mega companies (but not Mitre 10 Mega!) were all fair and above board. But on the other hand, Dotcom is fighting tooth and nail not to be extradited to the US to have that very day in court, which will either exonerate or convict him.
That seems like a very strange conundrum. Surely, in order to have his "day in court" from which he hopes to emerge triumphant, he actually has to go to the US, but he is resisting efforts to extradite him there with every fibre of his rather substantial being.
We have a theory (of course!); Kim Dotcom is the darling of the New Zealand media which, let's be honest, fawns over his every move and utterance. In the US, he would be a very small fish (metaphorically speaking) in a very large pond, and would not get the attention that he courts.
Quite why the New Zealand media has such an obsession about a man with a dodgy past, a man who has no regard whatsoever for the intellectual property of others, and a man who thinks jokes about rape and the Holocaust are funny is another matter again, but we'll wonder about that another day.
13 comments:
Keeping repeating defamations makes them no less defamatory Edward.
It seems reasonable that a person facing extradition to another country for something, should be able to see the evidence that is being used against them. This is generally allowed in both NZ law and US law for people facing a criminal charge, and the refusal of the US to provide him with the evidence before he's extradited is a massive breach of natural justice and stinks. In this respect so does allowing the US to confiscate his computers in NZ and take them back to the US, he hasn't been convicted of anything here. That's not to say I support Dotcom, his business model was certainly unethical, but whether it was criminal is very dubious.
Dotcom is awaiting details from the American Government that are needed before a legal extradition can take place. That's why he's still here. Your 'wondering' is pointless if you are not going to address the facts.
It's odd because Dotcom is just the sort of self-made capitalist hero the right usually fall all over. On this occasion he's being smeared, as discrediting him is to the advantage of a lying trougher who received large donations from the victim of the smear. It's the sort of behavour IV2 would normally accuse of the left. He hates having this pointed out to him though.
Still borderline Edward, but given that you've omitted the "c" word, it gets through. I wouldn't call Banks a trougher though; he is a very wealthy man taking a cut in income to be an MP.
If he's that wealthy why did he need to go grovelling to Dotcom for money and then go to great lengths to hide it from the public? Especially considering all that you've said about Dotcom has been known for years.
That's a question you'd have to ask Mr Banks Edward. Of course, the same question could be posed of Len Brown, of Winston Peters and of virtually every other local or central government politician. They all like spending Other People's Money.
Are you saying Len Brown secretly sought and received donations from Kim Dotcom and then went to great lengths to hide this from the public, including manipulating electoral laws? Do you have evidence for this allegation?
I'm not going to defend Peters as I'm not two-faced. He and Banks are the same. Neither are fit to be Ministers. One of them is though.
Are you saying Len Brown secretly sought and received donations from Kim Dotcom and then went to great lengths to hide this from the public, including manipulating electoral laws?
Not at all Edward, although this makes interesting reading:
Auckland's first Super City mayor was elected using largely anonymous donations, despite promising to lead an administration of openness and accountability to the public.
Of Len Brown's total campaign war chest of $581,900 in donations, $499,000 was folded into a single trust to protect the identity of those who gave money to help elect him but wished to remain nameless.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10693580
Half a million dollars in anonymous donations for Len; that's a lot of faceless cash. And d'you reckon that the Maritime Union got value for money for the $2k declared donation? I think not.
Wow! Len did exacly what the Nats do to protect the identities of donors. Rightly or wrongly that's the way it works. In Banks' case though the donor didn't care and Banks went to special lengths to hide the fact that he'd been given a huge some of money. Including telling blatant lies to the public.
Brown also declared his Sky City donation, which was made in exactly the same manner as their supposedly anonymous one to Banks.
And isn't it a good thing that the $2k the union openly gave to Brown wasn't with any particular benefit forthcoming? If it was you'd be squawking your loudest squawk and howling with all the faux outrage you use for your beat ups on the Greens.
This just in
The confessor goes AWOL after being slam dunked
THat's right Bunk. Either that or IV2's not putting my comments up, eh IV2?
Post a Comment