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
 
      02-13-2012

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:15:20 +1300, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
shouted from the highest rooftop:

>What exactly is grandstanding to you?


The following:

Dotcom birthday party targeted

By David Fisher

5:30 AM Sunday Jan 22, 2012

A dawn raid that landed internet mogul Kim Dotcom in jail was timed
for his birthday celebration so his party guests could also be locked
up.

More at:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10780321


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Frank Williams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-13-2012
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:15:20 +1300, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 12:55:21 +1300, Donchano
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>>I agree. But what concerns me the most is that allowing this kind of
>>OTT grandstanding by the police might set a precedent that will lead
>>to more of the same. I know that heavy-handed, quasi-military
>>operations like the Dotcom swoop are part of the American culture, but
>>do we want this kind of storm trooper mentality here? I know I don't.

>
>
>Could you please explain in detail about what was over the top, heavy
>handed or quasi military about the dotcom swoop?
>
>Try reading this.
>http://www.tenone.police.govt.nz/ten...2National1.htm
>
>I think your attitude is outrageous and an insult to the police in
>this country.
>
><quote>
>The high-profile operation centred on Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom in
>Auckland was the culmination of several months of careful planning by
>staff in Auckland and Wellington.
>...
>Termination phases were simultaneously carried out in nine countries.
>...
>Ten search warrants were executed at addresses across Auckland.
><>
>
>Why in the world would the police "grandstand".
>The operation was early in the morning. STANDARD PROCEDURE.
>They broke into the house because they had arrest warrants and were
>locked out. STANDARD PROCEDURE.
>They were armed because they had reason to expect resistance. STANDARD
>PROCEDURE.
>
>What exactly is grandstanding to you? If you see a police car with a
>siren going racing to someone's assistance is that grandstanding?
>
>You sound like one of these people who support the senseless vandalism
>at Waihopai that cost this country 3.5 million dollars.
>
>How would you feel if the All Blacks didn't make any money from
>advertising revenue because someone intercepted the broadcast and
>rebroadcast it for free over the internet?
>
>How would you feel if you wrote a song that should have earnt you ten
>million dollars over the rest of your life and you didn't make a cent
>because nobody bought the recording?




Seems to me you have been Conned as well, believe nothing in what you
here and 1/2 in what you read..
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Frank Williams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-13-2012
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:46:49 +1300, Donchano
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:15:20 +1300, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
>shouted from the highest rooftop:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 12:55:21 +1300, Donchano
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I agree. But what concerns me the most is that allowing this kind of
>>>OTT grandstanding by the police might set a precedent that will lead
>>>to more of the same. I know that heavy-handed, quasi-military
>>>operations like the Dotcom swoop are part of the American culture, but
>>>do we want this kind of storm trooper mentality here? I know I don't.

>>
>>
>>Could you please explain in detail about what was over the top, heavy
>>handed or quasi military about the dotcom swoop?

>
>See below.
>
>>Try reading this.
>>http://www.tenone.police.govt.nz/ten...2National1.htm
>>
>>I think your attitude is outrageous and an insult to the police in
>>this country.
>>
>><quote>
>>The high-profile operation centred on Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom in
>>Auckland was the culmination of several months of careful planning by
>>staff in Auckland and Wellington.
>>...
>>Termination phases were simultaneously carried out in nine countries.
>>...
>>Ten search warrants were executed at addresses across Auckland.
>><>
>>
>>Why in the world would the police "grandstand".
>>The operation was early in the morning. STANDARD PROCEDURE.
>>They broke into the house because they had arrest warrants and were
>>locked out. STANDARD PROCEDURE.
>>They were armed because they had reason to expect resistance. STANDARD
>>PROCEDURE.

>
>From TV3 News online: Seventy-six police officers, many armed with
>automatic weapons and pistols, including members of the elite Special
>Tactics Group, arrived at Kim Dotcom’s Coatesville property on January
>20, to arrest him on charges relating to copyright offences.
>
>And: Even the police officer says there has never been a raid like
>this before in New Zealand.
>
>WTF was STANDARD about that? Even the police say there has never been
>a raid like this one before in NZ.
>
>>What exactly is grandstanding to you? If you see a police car with a
>>siren going racing to someone's assistance is that grandstanding?

>
>All the publicity and media coverage immediately following the raid
>might give you a hint. According to a leader accompanying an article
>on NZ Herald online, the raids were carried out during a birthday
>party in order to cause Dotcom "maximum embarrassment." They corralled
>EVERYONE - not just the individuals specified in the arrest warrant/s.
>
>They rousted the children's nanny's from their beds at gunpoint. They
>forced Dotcom's heavily pregnant wife stand outdoors in the cold and
>wet for over an hour. She was guarded by two police officers even
>though she had broken no laws.
>
>According to another NZ Herald article: The rooms used by the nannies,
>close to the children's room, have splintered door frames. The nannies
>have said the doors were unlocked and armed police stormed in
>shouting, "Do you have any guns or bombs?
>
>Seventy-six police officers, many armed with automatic weapons and
>pistols, including members of the elite Special Tactics Group back by
>helicopters to arrest how many people? Five.
>
>And you don't think that's grandstanding?
>
>>You sound like one of these people who support the senseless vandalism
>>at Waihopai that cost this country 3.5 million dollars.

>
>You're making some very shaky and offensive assumptions here. I do not
>support mindless parasites like that and never have.
>
>>How would you feel if the All Blacks didn't make any money from
>>advertising revenue because someone intercepted the broadcast and
>>rebroadcast it for free over the internet?

>
>Again, you are jumping to conclusions. Lynch mob mentality, trial by
>media or some arrogant jerk in a Usenet newsgroup has never appealed
>to me. I'm very happy with the time honoured principle of presumption
>of innocence.
>
>>How would you feel if you wrote a song that should have earnt you ten
>>million dollars over the rest of your life and you didn't make a cent
>>because nobody bought the recording?

>
>My comments and query were not about what Dotcom and co may or may not
>have done to lead to their current predicament. I'm not in a position
>to judge, and neither are you.
>
>What I am concerned about is how their arrest was executed.
>
>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10783521
>
>
>To quote from Brian Rudman's Op-ed piece titled: Dotcom raid threat to
>sovereignty
>
>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10782485
>
>As far as issues of sovereignty are concerned, the ownership of a
>handful of remote dairy farms is of much less concern to me than the
>thought of the world's only super-power, dialling up the local
>Auckland police and deputising a mini-Swat team of 70 to swoop down in
>helicopters in a dawn raid on a Coatesville mansion to arrest the
>leaders of an international internet file-sharing site that's been
>getting up the noses of Hollywood film moguls.
>
>Coming fast on the heels of extradition proceedings launched in
>Britain by the United States against a 23-year old student Richard
>O'Dwyer for similar alleged offences, it's a flexing of the imperial
>eagle's talons that should be worrying patriots everywhere. Mr
>O'Dwyer's website allegedly enabled visitors to download pirated films
>and television. If extradited he faces up to 10 years in prison even
>though there are doubts it's an offence under British law.
>
>There has long been debate about who should police the internet. The
>United States government, under pressure from the international movie
>and recording giants, has decided to clean up the wild west of
>cyberspace on its own. With a little help from extradition treaties it
>has with some countries - New Zealand and Britain for two - but not,
>it seems, Mr Dotcom's homeland, Germany.
>
>As far as international justice goes, I'm not so sure we should be
>giving the United States a free rein. When it comes to international
>crusades, the US is not averse to ignoring, or rewriting the rules of
>law. Osama bin Laden and Pakistan found out about that. So do the
>prisoners in the extraterritorial no-man's land of Guantanamo Bay. The
>word "rendition" gained a new meaning under the American justice
>system, describing the process of spiriting a suspect wrong-doer by
>plane to Afghanistan or some other lawless base, where water-boarding
>and other tortures can take place outside the bounds of the victim's
>US constitutional rights.
>
>New Zealand's 1970 extradition treaty with the US has been going
>through a "modernisation" process since 2006. For politicians fearful
>of threats to our sovereignty, this is a more immediate worry than the
>ownership of a few remote dairy farms.
>
>By Brian Rudman
>




Great article I could not have said it better.

Go watch the TV series Meltdown 4 Parts
or the Secrets of the Seven Sisters 4 Parts CH7

The Meltdown can be found on http://www.aljazeera.com/

Meltdown is a Canadian made program


All this shows how Evil the Yanks are..



 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter Huebner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-14-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)d says...
>
>
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:15:20 +1300, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
> shouted from the highest rooftop:
>
> >On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 12:55:21 +1300, Donchano
> ><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>I agree. But what concerns me the most is that allowing this kind of
> >>OTT grandstanding by the police might set a precedent that will lead
> >>to more of the same. I know that heavy-handed, quasi-military
> >>operations like the Dotcom swoop are part of the American culture, but
> >>do we want this kind of storm trooper mentality here? I know I don't.

> >
> >
> >Could you please explain in detail about what was over the top, heavy
> >handed or quasi military about the dotcom swoop?

>
> See below.
>
>
>


It is utterly unbelievable to me that Mssrs. whatsisname and whoisthat
seem to gobble down what's serverd up on the police propaganda site and
swallow it hook line and sinker yet don't even seem to have followed the
mainstream media coverage about the incident. Then spout wholesale bs in
this ng. which can only be summed up with the heading 'don't bother us
with facts'.
<sigh>
Even Roger seems to have more sense and a better grasp of 'facts' than
that, and that's saying a lot. Heeeere's your sign!

I expect a single police car with a couple of officers would've been
enough to execute that arrest warrant. It's not like we're talking about
a Mexican drug lord with a private army wielding automatic weapons here.
And, as a side note, even the ****ing bastards from the Waffen-SS had no
problems with showing their faces and knocking on the door instead of
deliberately trashing people's houses. Did the nanny have a bomb or a
WMD?

I also find it disturbing that a cabinet minister apparently had prior
knowledge of what was in the pipeline and tried to torpedo Mr. Dotcom's
acquiring his residence for that reason in the first place.

Makes me wonder:
Do we still have a rule of law in this country? Some people (and some of
those are in the government) seem to have only the vaguest of notions
what that entails.

E.g: do they even know what a grand jury in the US is? It would be one
matter if Dotcom was *convicted* of a crime in an evidenced based
judgement by a court of law. That would be a sound legal base for an
extradition, whatever one may think about the judgement. A grand jury
indictment is nothing of the sort. It merely means 'yes, you may bring
this before a court'. Kind of like a pre-trial hearing only it's not
before a judge, it's before a bunch of lay citizens. It does not say
'he's guilty'. To base an extradition on a grand jury indictment is
spurious at least.

-P.


 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-14-2012
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:00:16 +1300, Donchano
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:15:20 +1300, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
>shouted from the highest rooftop:
>
>>What exactly is grandstanding to you?

>
>The following:
>
>Dotcom birthday party targeted
>
>By David Fisher
>
>5:30 AM Sunday Jan 22, 2012
>
>A dawn raid that landed internet mogul Kim Dotcom in jail was timed
>for his birthday celebration so his party guests could also be locked
>up.
>
>More at:
>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10780321
>


Wow. I'm staggered that you think this is evidence of grandstanding.
The only people the police locked up or had any intention of locking
up were those they had arrest warrants for or those who resisted them
executing their search and arrest warrents, so if you want me to
believe the Herald article then the reason for targetting the birthday
party was because that was the easiest and surest way of getting the
people they were after and absolutely legitimate. I never doubted it.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-14-2012
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:44:28 +1300, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:00:16 +1300, Donchano
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>>On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:15:20 +1300, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>shouted from the highest rooftop:
>>
>>>What exactly is grandstanding to you?

>>
>>The following:
>>
>>Dotcom birthday party targeted
>>
>>By David Fisher
>>
>>5:30 AM Sunday Jan 22, 2012
>>
>>A dawn raid that landed internet mogul Kim Dotcom in jail was timed
>>for his birthday celebration so his party guests could also be locked
>>up.
>>
>>More at:
>>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10780321
>>

>
>Wow. I'm staggered that you think this is evidence of grandstanding.
>The only people the police locked up or had any intention of locking
>up were those they had arrest warrants for or those who resisted them
>executing their search and arrest warrents, so if you want me to
>believe the Herald article then the reason for targetting the birthday
>party was because that was the easiest and surest way of getting the
>people they were after and absolutely legitimate. I never doubted it.



God. It even says it in the article you linked to

<quote>
Detective Inspector Grant Wormald, of the Organised & Financial Crime
Agency New Zealand, said the planning of the raid was timed around
Dotcom's 38th birthday celebrations, intended for yesterday.

"Intelligence had told us that when he has a birthday party most of
the people who were indicted (in the US) would be at his party."
<>

Can't you read?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Donchano
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-14-2012

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:44:28 +1300, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
shouted from the highest rooftop:

>On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:00:16 +1300, Donchano
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>>On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:15:20 +1300, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>shouted from the highest rooftop:
>>
>>>What exactly is grandstanding to you?

>>
>>The following:
>>
>>Dotcom birthday party targeted
>>
>>By David Fisher
>>
>>5:30 AM Sunday Jan 22, 2012
>>
>>A dawn raid that landed internet mogul Kim Dotcom in jail was timed
>>for his birthday celebration so his party guests could also be locked
>>up.
>>
>>More at:
>>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10780321
>>

>
>Wow. I'm staggered that you think this is evidence of grandstanding.
>The only people the police locked up or had any intention of locking
>up were those they had arrest warrants for or those who resisted them
>executing their search and arrest warrents, so if you want me to
>believe the Herald article then the reason for targetting the birthday
>party was because that was the easiest and surest way of getting the
>people they were after and absolutely legitimate. I never doubted it.


If there's anything more ridiculous than an fool who doesn't know he's
an fool, it's an fool who doesn't know when to stop proving it. At
least your good at something.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Donchano
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-14-2012

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:49:27 +1300, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
shouted from the highest rooftop:

>On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:44:28 +1300, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:00:16 +1300, Donchano
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:15:20 +1300, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>shouted from the highest rooftop:
>>>
>>>>What exactly is grandstanding to you?
>>>
>>>The following:
>>>
>>>Dotcom birthday party targeted
>>>
>>>By David Fisher
>>>
>>>5:30 AM Sunday Jan 22, 2012
>>>
>>>A dawn raid that landed internet mogul Kim Dotcom in jail was timed
>>>for his birthday celebration so his party guests could also be locked
>>>up.
>>>
>>>More at:
>>>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10780321
>>>

>>
>>Wow. I'm staggered that you think this is evidence of grandstanding.
>>The only people the police locked up or had any intention of locking
>>up were those they had arrest warrants for or those who resisted them
>>executing their search and arrest warrents, so if you want me to
>>believe the Herald article then the reason for targetting the birthday
>>party was because that was the easiest and surest way of getting the
>>people they were after and absolutely legitimate. I never doubted it.

>
>
>God. It even says it in the article you linked to
>
><quote>
>Detective Inspector Grant Wormald, of the Organised & Financial Crime
>Agency New Zealand, said the planning of the raid was timed around
>Dotcom's 38th birthday celebrations, intended for yesterday.
>
>"Intelligence had told us that when he has a birthday party most of
>the people who were indicted (in the US) would be at his party."


All five of them? Wow ...

>Can't you read?


Can't you comprehend?

 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-14-2012
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:07:10 +1300, Donchano
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:44:28 +1300, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
>shouted from the highest rooftop:
>
>>On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:00:16 +1300, Donchano
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:15:20 +1300, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>shouted from the highest rooftop:
>>>
>>>>What exactly is grandstanding to you?
>>>
>>>The following:
>>>
>>>Dotcom birthday party targeted
>>>
>>>By David Fisher
>>>
>>>5:30 AM Sunday Jan 22, 2012
>>>
>>>A dawn raid that landed internet mogul Kim Dotcom in jail was timed
>>>for his birthday celebration so his party guests could also be locked
>>>up.
>>>
>>>More at:
>>>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10780321
>>>

>>
>>Wow. I'm staggered that you think this is evidence of grandstanding.
>>The only people the police locked up or had any intention of locking
>>up were those they had arrest warrants for or those who resisted them
>>executing their search and arrest warrents, so if you want me to
>>believe the Herald article then the reason for targetting the birthday
>>party was because that was the easiest and surest way of getting the
>>people they were after and absolutely legitimate. I never doubted it.

>
>If there's anything more ridiculous than an fool who doesn't know he's
>an fool, it's an fool who doesn't know when to stop proving it. At
>least your good at something.


You can't spell. You can't read. You can't google.
Try listening. Listen to some facts.

http://www.3news.co.nz/Police-defend...5/Default.aspx
 
Reply With Quote
 
Donchano
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-14-2012

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:16:48 +1300, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
shouted from the highest rooftop:

>On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:07:10 +1300, Donchano
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>>On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:44:28 +1300, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>shouted from the highest rooftop:
>>
>>>On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:00:16 +1300, Donchano
>>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:15:20 +1300, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>shouted from the highest rooftop:
>>>>
>>>>>What exactly is grandstanding to you?
>>>>
>>>>The following:
>>>>
>>>>Dotcom birthday party targeted
>>>>
>>>>By David Fisher
>>>>
>>>>5:30 AM Sunday Jan 22, 2012
>>>>
>>>>A dawn raid that landed internet mogul Kim Dotcom in jail was timed
>>>>for his birthday celebration so his party guests could also be locked
>>>>up.
>>>>
>>>>More at:
>>>>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10780321
>>>>
>>>
>>>Wow. I'm staggered that you think this is evidence of grandstanding.
>>>The only people the police locked up or had any intention of locking
>>>up were those they had arrest warrants for or those who resisted them
>>>executing their search and arrest warrents, so if you want me to
>>>believe the Herald article then the reason for targetting the birthday
>>>party was because that was the easiest and surest way of getting the
>>>people they were after and absolutely legitimate. I never doubted it.

>>
>>If there's anything more ridiculous than an fool who doesn't know he's
>>an fool, it's an fool who doesn't know when to stop proving it. At
>>least your good at something.

>
>You can't spell. You can't read. You can't google.
>Try listening. Listen to some facts.
>
>http://www.3news.co.nz/Police-defend...5/Default.aspx


Cheap shots as usual.

Try listening to someone other than the police. You might learn
something. But I doubt it.

 
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