Legal Beagle by Graeme Edgeler

Read Post

Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom: Questions and Answers

114 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to Hebe,

    I know nothing...

    Key looks in off-guard moments like
    he knows his luck has turned

    Aye, his recent diet of 'mumble pie'
    does not sit well with him...

    I think this whole Gov't needs to be
    advised of what their Legacy will be...
    Brownlee is probably happy being reviled,
    but does Parata really want to be remembered
    as the 'Woman who threw away our kids' future'.
    I always hope that Key is vain enough to spin the wheel at the last minute, to avoid being the Captain of the 'Ship of State that sank'...
    But unfortunately, judging by his rabbit-in-the-headlights-mien of late, it all seems to be on track for the inevitable train wreck...

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 5169 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Gordon Campbell writes about the signifcant limitations on Neazor's role as Inspector General of our Security Services. Doubt the govt has much to worry about from his report, somehow.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16996 posts Report Reply

  • Hebe, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    I always hope that Key is vain enough to spin the wheel at the last minute

    'S ok, Mr Crosby and Mr Textor will see you now

    Christchurch • Since May 2011 • 2634 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    Interesting that p19 of this doc refers to "emails intercepted by the FBI".

    Which suggests that the US authorities do have such a capability and use it.

    I'm interested in the legal liability of NZ authorities (GCSB, police) receiving such information. Legal if the monitoring was done overseas? Even if one or both parties were resident in NZ at the time? Would it be legal to solicit such information?

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 4501 posts Report Reply

  • DexterX, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    IMHO.

    It may all starts to happen after Justice Winkleman's judgment.- should the judgement rule in favour of disclosure as sought by KDC the govt could unravel - if not Key will smirk his way through to the next election and the nation can then make the choice.

    The Nazor report will not mean much.

    Read s 216B Crimes act - the protection is only afforded when on is acting lawfully - s 216B (I) &(2)(iiia).

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1210 posts Report Reply

  • DexterX,

    Funny, the OFCANZ request for STG Assitance dated 9th Jan 2012 notes that KDC and his wife are NZ Residents.

    It is not a mistake - it is bullshit.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1210 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    Neazor's report is out. The verdict is that changes to immigration law got people confused about Dotcom's actual residence status. The visa he was granted in 2009 wouldn't have qualified him for protection, it seems, but a subsequent law change altered that status.

    The pit from whence crawl… • Since Mar 2007 • 3934 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to DexterX,

    Funny, the OFCANZ request for STG Assitance dated 9th Jan 2012 notes that KDC and his wife are NZ Residents.

    It is not a mistake – it is bullshit.

    See Neazor's report. Being an "NZ resident" in that request doesn't necessarily mean what it needs to mean for the GCSB's actions to be (il)legal.

    The pit from whence crawl… • Since Mar 2007 • 3934 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    I don't buy that.

    The system is quite simple - there are two main classes of visa, resident and temporary. The former defines "permanent resident" in the GCSB Act. When a person migrates to NZ, they will get a residence visa (usually) with conditions - once those are met, it becomes permanent.

    These organisations employ and retain lawyers. They can get clarification any time, and it behooves them to do so when resident status is at the heart of the legality or otherwise of any GCSB action.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 4501 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming,

    I'm disappointed by Neazor's report. He's absolved the GCSB on a very spurious ground. While KDC's visa status was first one thing then the other, by the time the surveillance occurred, he was most definitely covered by permanent residency. Heads will not roll, and they should. Even Bill English has dodged this bullet.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2208 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to nzlemming,

    He’s absolved the GCSB on a very spurious ground

    GCSB wasn’t really going to be faulted for relying on OFCANZ’s assurances. If they couldn’t take the word of the Police, something was wrong. He hasn’t said that GCSB didn’t gather information, and he hasn’t said that GCSB’s gathering was, somehow, legal.

    Unless people were expecting Neazor to uncover a decision from within GCSB to knowingly spy on someone who, under law, was outside their reach, this report doesn’t say anything ground-breaking. It’s interesting as to how the machinations of Dotcom’s visa status became a source of confusion, but the suggestions that GCSB should’ve just asked Google actually probably wouldn’t have gotten anything different since the precise nuances of visa classes aren’t something I would want to trust to be reported correctly in the media. The GCSB relied on an agency that has a relationship with Immigration, and that agency got it wrong. OFCANZ’s fuckup isn’t Neazor’s bailiwick, it’s the jurisdiction of the IPCA.

    ETA: In fact, contrary to absolving GCSB, Neazor concludes explicitly that the information gathering was illegal.

    The pit from whence crawl… • Since Mar 2007 • 3934 posts Report Reply

  • steve black,

    I've recently been watching the Yes Minister series from the beginning. I see I will be able to pause my (legally purchased) DVD and watch the real thing for a time. It is fun comparing the two.

    Please pass the popcorn.

    sunny mt albert • Since Jan 2007 • 84 posts Report Reply

  • Nick Spencer,

    Nice analysis. Cheers!!

    Centered • Since Aug 2009 • 34 posts Report Reply

  • DexterX, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    Neazor's report meets, to a degree, farce with farce

    Well OFCANZ weren't confused - they state KDC is a NZ Resident.

    First Citizen John Key is just too great everybody loves him, men want to be him, women want to be with him and his govt is divine - even you Matthew appear here to be so enamoured by his charisma that you ardently support a position that defends his shambles of an administration.

    That we even find oursleves here, debating the rorts and wrongs, is a sign to me that things are rotten.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1210 posts Report Reply

  • wendyf,

    What has happened to the other three men who were with KDC?

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 80 posts Report Reply

  • FletcherB, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    The system is quite simple – there are two main classes of visa, resident and temporary.

    I'm trying to figure out if I qualify as a "foreign national", "resident" or something else.... (I am in practice resident- but what's my legal status?)

    I'm of Australian birth, and have an Australian Passport, but have lived in NZ for three quarters of my life... When I return from (infrequent and short) trips abroad, theres a special box for me to tick... I'm "exempt from having to apply" for a Visa...

    Does that mean I have one automatically, or is it some other previously not mentioned status (can't see a reference to Australians in that link or the other branches from it's parent directory"?

    Can the GCSB spy on Aussies permanently living in NZ without a resident visa? :)

    West Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 801 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant, in reply to FletcherB,

    Can the GCSB spy on Aussies permanently living in NZ without a resident visa?

    That's a very interesting question, and one I'd love an answer to.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1668 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to DexterX,

    even you Matthew appear here to be so enamoured by his charisma that you ardently support a position that defends his shambles of an administration.

    *snort*

    I support a position that GCSB were entitled to rely on an assurance from another government agency. I've called that agency's assurance a fuckup, I've pointed out that there's no absolution of GCSB's gathering of the information on the basis of that assurance. I've no idea how you got from there to a defence of the Key regime.

    I'm not prepared to drag GCSB over the coals for their reliance. I want to know how OFCANZ, which as part of the Police is an agency that has a relationship with Immigration, fucked up. I'm still hoping that Key will sack English for not telling him that GCSB were being dragged into a high-profile extradition wrangle which a politician with English's experience ought to have known would lead to GCSB's involvement becoming public (never mind the legality), though far from hopeful that he will have the balls because Key's "ethical standards" are more flexible than a 12-year-old Chinese Olympic gymnast.

    The pit from whence crawl… • Since Mar 2007 • 3934 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Williams,

    This is a new high point for Hon. Dr Lockwood Smith as the Speaker (kudos to the Greens for framing the issue this way)

    Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2239 posts Report Reply

  • DexterX, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    At the seat of most major shambles are people not reading the instructions and proceeding on assumptions - that people are cognitive misers I have stated before.

    I put it to you the very real possibility that to OFCANZ, GSCB and the PM it just wasn't an issue that was considered - the residency status of KDC - until it was pointed out to them by KDC's lawyers.

    The direction things are going in now is just more of the cover up.

    OFCANZ new KDC was a resident - they likely just didn't see it as significant - refer STG request.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1210 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    The visa he was granted in 2009 wouldn't have qualified him for protection, it seems, but a subsequent law change altered that status.

    I'd be interested to know what visa he was granted in 2009 - perhaps Mr Dotcom himself might supply a copy by way of clarification?

    The system before the Immigration Act 2009 was that visas and permits were different, related, things. When one was approved for residence (when overseas) a resident *visa* was granted, and this was supplanted by a *permit* on arrival in NZ. The 2009 Act and consequential changes merged the visa and permit concept, so now there are only visas.

    Under the GCSB Act before 29-Nov-10, a 'resident permit' holder (a landed migrant granted permanent residence) was protected from interception. A 'resident visa' holder (a person approved to migrate but not yet arrived) was not.
    After 29-Nov-10, both categories are protected from the date of visa grant.

    But Mr Dotcom, having landed, was, I suspect, protected in both circumstances.
    The *confusion* sounds disingenous, to put it mildly.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 4501 posts Report Reply

  • Chris Waugh,

    I'm wondering, particularly given the comments attributed to John Key in this story, whether there is room for the responsible GCSB officers to be prosecuted under the Crimes Act.

    'Responsible' is no longer a word I would use to describe John Key.

    Beijing • Since Jan 2007 • 2190 posts Report Reply

  • DexterX,

    There is a very real and pressing need to start building tiolets on Planet Key.

    But who gets the the job to clean them after this gets flushed out of the system, there is more to come. The disclosure thing and all.

    He was disappointed in a Plymough Satelitte, Faster than the speed of light.

    Ahhhahhahhahh

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1210 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to DexterX,

    I put it to you the very real possibility that to OFCANZ, GSCB and the PM it just wasn’t an issue that was considered – the residency status of KDC – until it was pointed out to them by KDC’s lawyers.

    So they then went back and fabricated a sufficient documentary trail to cover their arses that Neazor bought it? Fuck's sake, this isn't a movie!

    OFCANZ new KDC was a resident – they likely just didn’t see it as significant – refer STG request.

    What evidence do you have that the "NZ resident" was in reference to his immigration status rather than his principal domicile? If I were a tactical unit commander I wouldn't care less if the person I was taking down was an immigration resident, but I'd care a great deal if they were principally domiciled in another country and thus might leave NZ for long periods of time with very little notice. I'd then be thinking about the possibility of interception at the airport, border watches, etc. If all you know is that fragment of a sentence, I'll put to you that OFCANZ were informing STG that Dotcom lives in New Zealand.

    The pit from whence crawl… • Since Mar 2007 • 3934 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Chris Waugh,

    whether there is room for the responsible GCSB officers to be prosecuted under the Crimes Act.

    Neazor's finding that the information gathering was illegal opens up that avenue, regardless of what Key's said. See the original post from Graeme for the necessary information about what needs to happen for that to occur.

    The pit from whence crawl… • Since Mar 2007 • 3934 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.