Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom: Questions and Answers, in reply to DexterX,
we have the Deputy Prime Minister signing a suppression order as a result – a revelation in itself.
Actually not so much, IMO. Not revealing the involvement and output of the intelligence services isn't exactly a shocking development when we're talking about a court case where things will be public record, and that was the extent of the order that English signed: that the GCSB were involved, and what they gave to the Police, are not to be revealed. If it were the SIS, for whom such spying would've been legal (if properly authorised, and I have little doubt that Key would've signed the warrant), there would never have been the opportunity for this to blow up because the order would've been suppressing things that are entirely legitimate. It's only because it was the GCSB that we now know the order was signed and would've been protecting illegal activity.
Question for Graeme: what's the status of that order in light of what we now know? Does it cease to be valid? Can the court overturn it? Or is it only ever an advisory notice to the court and the judge can ignore it or observe as they choose?
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom: Questions and Answers, in reply to Sacha,
including emails between the arrestees. Now wondering how those were obtained
Seizure warrants in the US. It's well-known how that evidence was gathered, and there's nothing dodgy about it. The Feds got warrants, seized computers, gathered evidence. Completely legal and above-board.
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom: Questions and Answers, 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.
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom: Questions and Answers, 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.
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom: Questions and Answers, 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.
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom: Questions and Answers, 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.
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom: Questions and Answers, 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom: Questions and Answers, in reply to Idiot Savant,
So, is this actually going to be part of Neazor’s inquiry? Or is the wider problem going to be quietly swept under the rug?
Why would it be Neazor's concern, TBH? I would say it's a concern to be raised at the political level by the Justice Select Committee.