Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > What NZ criminal offence is Dotcom accused of having committed?

Reply
Thread Tools

What NZ criminal offence is Dotcom accused of having committed?

 
 
Donchano
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2012

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:52:22 +1300, nospam <>
shouted from the highest rooftop:

>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:27:11 +1300, Donchano
><> wrote:
>
>>
>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:17:35 +1300, nospam <>
>>shouted from the highest rooftop:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:46:43 +1300, Donchano
>>><> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thanks. But that still doesn't answer my question. What NZ criminal
>>>>offence or offences was he arrested for having violated?
>>>>
>>>
>>>None
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition

>>
>>Thanks. I know that the US wants to extradite Dotcom in order to stand
>>trial for the US laws he's accused of having violated.
>>
>>But Dotcom was arrested in New Zealand by the New Zealand police, not
>>in the US by the FBI. So what NZ criminal offence or offenses was he
>>arrested for having allegedly violated? What New Zealand offences were
>>specified on the arrest warrant/s?

>
>I already answered you. None. Guess you didn't read the article on
>extradition.


On the contrary. I did read the article and while it does a good job
of summarizing extradition in general it obviously does not address
this specific case.

So ... if the answer to my question is that Dotcom and co were
arrested in New Zealand by New Zealand police without them having
violated any NZ laws, I'm assuming the police still had to have an
arrest warrant authorised by a magistrate. Assuming that the NZ police
still need an arrest warrant to arrest people in this country, does
anyone know what the warrant stated as being the justification for the
arrest?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Donchano
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2012

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:09:12 +1300, whoisthis <>
shouted from the highest rooftop:

>In article <>,
> Donchano <> wrote:
>
>> I know that Dotcom is accused of committing a whole raft of criminal
>> offenses under US law. But can anyone tell me what NZ criminal offence
>> he's accused of having committed? TIA.

>
>Its does not require a crime to be committed in NZ to be extradited for
>crimes in other countries. So the question is irrelevant.


But Dotcom and co have not been extradited. They've been arrested.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2012
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:32:19 +1300, Donchano
<> wrote:

>
>On the contrary. I did read the article and while it does a good job
>of summarizing extradition in general it obviously does not address
>this specific case.
>
>So ... if the answer to my question is that Dotcom and co were
>arrested in New Zealand by New Zealand police without them having
>violated any NZ laws, I'm assuming the police still had to have an
>arrest warrant authorised by a magistrate. Assuming that the NZ police
>still need an arrest warrant to arrest people in this country, does
>anyone know what the warrant stated as being the justification for the
>arrest?


It was a provisional arrest. I'm sure you can google as well as I
can.

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/201...dition-request

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p....html#DLM26216
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2012
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 14:18:25 +1300, nospam <>
wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:32:19 +1300, Donchano
><> wrote:
>
>>
>>On the contrary. I did read the article and while it does a good job
>>of summarizing extradition in general it obviously does not address
>>this specific case.
>>
>>So ... if the answer to my question is that Dotcom and co were
>>arrested in New Zealand by New Zealand police without them having
>>violated any NZ laws, I'm assuming the police still had to have an
>>arrest warrant authorised by a magistrate. Assuming that the NZ police
>>still need an arrest warrant to arrest people in this country, does
>>anyone know what the warrant stated as being the justification for the
>>arrest?

>
>It was a provisional arrest. I'm sure you can google as well as I
>can.
>
>http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/201...dition-request
>
>http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p....html#DLM26216



Some comments from a lawyer
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news...ectid=10784190
 
Reply With Quote
 
Donchano
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2012

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 14:25:07 +1300, nospam <>
shouted from the highest rooftop:

>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 14:18:25 +1300, nospam <>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:32:19 +1300, Donchano
>><> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>On the contrary. I did read the article and while it does a good job
>>>of summarizing extradition in general it obviously does not address
>>>this specific case.
>>>
>>>So ... if the answer to my question is that Dotcom and co were
>>>arrested in New Zealand by New Zealand police without them having
>>>violated any NZ laws, I'm assuming the police still had to have an
>>>arrest warrant authorised by a magistrate. Assuming that the NZ police
>>>still need an arrest warrant to arrest people in this country, does
>>>anyone know what the warrant stated as being the justification for the
>>>arrest?

>>
>>It was a provisional arrest. I'm sure you can google as well as I
>>can.
>>
>>http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/201...dition-request
>>
>>http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p....html#DLM26216

>
>
>Some comments from a lawyer
>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news...ectid=10784190


Thank you. I use Google a lot and tried posing the question but got no
answers.

Now I'm going to try and find out how the NZ authorities are
justifying the seizing of Dotcom's property. If he hasn't violated a
NZ law then how can they use the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act?


 
Reply With Quote
 
Donchano
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2012

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 14:58:01 +1300, whoisthis <>
shouted from the highest rooftop:

>In article <>,
> Donchano <> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:52:22 +1300, nospam <>
>> shouted from the highest rooftop:
>>
>> >On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:27:11 +1300, Donchano
>> ><> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:17:35 +1300, nospam <>
>> >>shouted from the highest rooftop:
>> >>
>> >>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:46:43 +1300, Donchano
>> >>><> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Thanks. But that still doesn't answer my question. What NZ criminal
>> >>>>offence or offences was he arrested for having violated?
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>None
>> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition
>> >>
>> >>Thanks. I know that the US wants to extradite Dotcom in order to stand
>> >>trial for the US laws he's accused of having violated.
>> >>
>> >>But Dotcom was arrested in New Zealand by the New Zealand police, not
>> >>in the US by the FBI. So what NZ criminal offence or offenses was he
>> >>arrested for having allegedly violated? What New Zealand offences were
>> >>specified on the arrest warrant/s?
>> >
>> >I already answered you. None. Guess you didn't read the article on
>> >extradition.

>>
>> On the contrary. I did read the article and while it does a good job
>> of summarizing extradition in general it obviously does not address
>> this specific case.
>>
>> So ... if the answer to my question is that Dotcom and co were
>> arrested in New Zealand by New Zealand police without them having
>> violated any NZ laws, I'm assuming the police still had to have an
>> arrest warrant authorised by a magistrate. Assuming that the NZ police
>> still need an arrest warrant to arrest people in this country, does
>> anyone know what the warrant stated as being the justification for the
>> arrest?

>
>Tell me what happens then if it is murder, rape ?
>The crime was not committed here in NZ, so police obviously can not
>arrest hime and charge him with a c rime in NZ, do we just say "meh" and
>walk away ?


Interesting point, but murder and rape are criminal offences in New
Zealand. I may be wrong, but I don't think copyright infringement is
.... yet.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2012
On 2012-02-11, Donchano <> wrote:
>
> I know that Dotcom is accused of committing a whole raft of criminal
> offenses under US law. But can anyone tell me what NZ criminal offence
> he's accused of having committed? TIA.
>

Making *my* money, for he has not killed anyone or tortured them.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter Huebner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2012
In article <who->,
r says...
>
> Tell me what happens then if it is murder, rape ?
> The crime was not committed here in NZ, so police obviously can not
> arrest hime and charge him with a c rime in NZ, do we just say "meh" and
> walk away ?
>


Absolutely not. That's fair comment.

Vice versa, if the Iranian religious police would demand a woman be
extradited for having an extramarital relationship and sleeping with an
X-tian hence being eligible for stoning to death under sharia law -- how
would we feel about that? Should we clap her in jail with no bail? Send
her to Teheran, gift wrapped? Sleeping around is not a crime in this
country.

Would the cops rush in with swat teams and black helicopters?

There are countless so called business people in NZ who have done worse
to their investors than that Mr. Dotcom has to the entertainment
industry (assuming that the allegations against him are true, which I
think has to be taken with significant doubt: ffs, the guy was employing
high powered lawyers to make sure he was NOT getting into hot water) and
I don't see _them_ being held in prison without bail. There's clearly an
'example' being set up for a witch-burning here, regardless of how
guilty or innocent he is.

What *particularly galls* is that when we, the citizens, need the cops,
they aren't there. The convicted pedophile from up the road, stalking a
13 year old girl, the cop didn't want to know when the parents reported
it. The kids with guns walking around on my place shooting at livestock,
the cop didn't want to know about. A friend had his house cleaned right
out, the cop said: "why did you come to US?" when the friend said he
didn't need the piece of paper for the insurance. I kid you not.
Some louts came in and shot some of my stock and took them away, the
cops didn't want to know until I went to the area commander. Then the
cop denied the perpetrators had had a gun when 3 of my neighbours had
seen them. Didn't even bother to interview the eyewitnesses. I called
111 on the cell when I saw a guy getting the **** kicked out of him,
covered in blood on the ground outside a pub, no cops ever showed up in
over 1/2 an hour that I stayed near by (hey, I wasn't getting mixed up
in THAT) ... by the same token I've seen a couple of cops pepperspraying
a handcuffed intellectually handicapped guy in the streets of Kaikohe
who was not offering them any resistance (although he had rolled himself
out of the cop-car at an intersection). All of this in the last 10
years.

But the FBI whistles and they bring out the Big Guns. Literally. I am
****ED OFF with those arseholes. I have no respect left for the nz
police. None. I will not be surprised if the whole thing turns out like
that 'east coast terrorists' debacle, in the end.

Not saying Dotcom is guilty or innocent, I haven't a clue. But I do know
that the 'armed offenders' are looking more and more like terrorists
than like the 'good guys'. The mere fact of how they go about hiding
their identity and their faces really says it all.


Ffs.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2012
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:38:47 +1300, Peter Huebner
<> wrote:

>There are countless so called business people in NZ who have done worse
>to their investors than that Mr. Dotcom has to the entertainment
>industry (assuming that the allegations against him are true, which I
>think has to be taken with significant doubt:


Countless? I don't think so. How many can you name?


>ffs, the guy was employing
>high powered lawyers to make sure he was NOT getting into hot water) and


This is rubbish. Please provide some evidence to support this
statement.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger_Nickel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2012
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:32:19 +1300, Donchano wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:52:22 +1300, nospam <>
> shouted from the highest rooftop:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:27:11 +1300, Donchano
>><> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:17:35 +1300, nospam <>
>>>shouted from the highest rooftop:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:46:43 +1300, Donchano
>>>><> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Thanks. But that still doesn't answer my question. What NZ criminal
>>>>>offence or offences was he arrested for having violated?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>None
>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition
>>>
>>>Thanks. I know that the US wants to extradite Dotcom in order to stand
>>>trial for the US laws he's accused of having violated.
>>>
>>>But Dotcom was arrested in New Zealand by the New Zealand police, not
>>>in the US by the FBI. So what NZ criminal offence or offenses was he
>>>arrested for having allegedly violated? What New Zealand offences were
>>>specified on the arrest warrant/s?

>>
>>I already answered you. None. Guess you didn't read the article on
>>extradition.

>
> On the contrary. I did read the article and while it does a good job of
> summarizing extradition in general it obviously does not address this
> specific case.
>
> So ... if the answer to my question is that Dotcom and co were arrested
> in New Zealand by New Zealand police without them having violated any NZ
> laws, I'm assuming the police still had to have an arrest warrant
> authorised by a magistrate. Assuming that the NZ police still need an
> arrest warrant to arrest people in this country, does anyone know what
> the warrant stated as being the justification for the arrest?


My understanding is that the communications intercepted by the FBI
include records of them talking to each other about how much money they
were making on the back of illegal downloads and of them making
arrangements to operate the business. In other words that they admit in
their own communication with each other to criminal conspiracy. It is
enough to prove criminal intent to get a conviction on criminal
conspiracy charges. Cops love conspiracy charges and bring them whenever
they can. I think that it sucks, Dotcom and his friends are hardly
gangsters and civil prosecution would be quite enough.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Australian, 90, accused of raping 4 Thai sisters OldGringo38 Computer Support 1 07-04-2010 05:16 AM
Accused Library Foot Kisser Indicted TwistyCreek Computer Support 2 07-31-2006 11:13 PM
MPAA ACCUSED OF HIRING A HACKER Imhotep Computer Security 0 05-27-2006 07:12 PM
MPAA accused of hiring hackers Modemac DVD Video 7 05-26-2006 11:03 PM
Re: Woman accused of raping infants the_fovemeister@kebi.com Digital Photography 0 01-23-2004 02:50 AM



Advertisments
 



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57