Why Dotcom’s appeal is forlorn

Yeah Kim, those cuffs are for you

Yeah Kim, those cuffs are for you

Kim Dotcom and his lawyers were full of bravado yesterday, claiming they will appeal. They can and have.

But I think if they, and it would be helpful if the media did as well, read the judgment there is one damning paragraph from Judge Nevin Dawson that they should take heed of.

[698] This eligibility Court has received an extraordinarily large volume of material to consider, and the hearing took over 9 weeks before completion. The parties were informed by this Court that all matters relevant to this eligibility hearing would be heard at the hearing and decisions would issue accordingly. At the end of the hearing, all parties confirmed to this Court that none of them had any further issues they wished to raise.

[699] Given the very large volume of material presented during the hearing it is not possible to issue decisions that would be less than encyclopaedic in length in order to cover every minor point alluded to in the hearing. There is no need to do this. Much of the material presented to this Court has not been relevant to an eligibility hearing and a number of the submissions were unsupported by appropriately sworn evidence. They do not come near to undermining the applicant’s case or point to a breach of the duty of candour and good faith. If some aspects of the parties submissions or evidence has not been referred to in this judgment that is because it was not relevant to the decision given.

That is legal speak for saying that screeds of what the defence produced to support their application was irrelevant and unsupported by facts. Horse-shit in other words.  

The Media Party though are running his lawyer’s lines and focussing on the minutiae of the very same details the judge says are irrelevant.

One of the more hilarious parts of the judgment is the claims by Kim Dotcom that he shouldn’t be extradited because of political implications.

[691] It has been submitted for the first respondent, Mr Dotcom, that if this Court was to find a prima facie case against him rendering him eligible for surrender, then the mandatory restrictions on surrender in s7 and the discretionary restrictions in s8 of the Act should be applied by this Court.

[…]

[695] Mr Dotcom through his counsel’s submissions and his affidavit filed in support of his evidence during the hearing of the stay application during this hearing,alleges that the United States movie studios provide very large sums of money to theDemocrat and Republican political parties, and to the Democrat Party in particular.The present President of the United States of America is a Democrat. He alleges that highly placed US movie studio executives have often met with highly placed US politicians, including the Vice President of the United States of America, Mr Joe Biden. He says that his views on the use of the internet and its future use is very different from the views of the US movie studios and he is being attacked by them because of his views. In essence he is alleging the US movie studios have used credit they have built up with the Democrat Party administration in the USA to have him extradited from New Zealand to face prosecution in the USA. He submits that the prosecution of him has a political motive and this Court should use its discretion to stop his surrender for extradition.

[696] The primary application which is the subject of this hearing has already been found to have a legal basis as a prima facie case has been established by the applicant. The charges are not trivial in nature pursuant to s 8(1)(a) as they allege serious misconduct involving approximately US$175 million claimed to be lost by the copyright owners. As a prima facie case exists, it is proper that the copyright owners should be heard at trial.

[697] That Mr Dotcom has a different point of view about the use of the internet from others including the US movie studios does not have the hallmarks of what is ordinarily regarded as political persecution for political beliefs. It is a difference of opinion about a business matter, the use of the internet and the application of copyright law. There is a prima facie case providing a legal basis for his extraditionfor these issues to be heard at trial. There is therefore no basis for finding the first respondent not eligible for surrender based upon either sections 7 or 8 of the Act.

The Judge has thrown that argument out, but it confirms what I suspected when the Internet Party was set up that Dotcom was going to claim that he was a political figure. That all fell apart when their Dirty Politics hit job failed spectacularly.

What is becoming apparent though is that the Media Party haven’t actually bothered to accurately report proceedings, and then have failed to accurately report the findings of the judgment. There are elements in the judgment I had never heard about until I read it. That means our media failed us…again.

They have all been invested in promoting the interests of Kim Dotcom, and the NZ Herald in particular invested heavily, even allowing one of their journalists to taint himself by becoming a shill for Dotcom. They will spend the next few days back peddling and hoping that people forget what it is they did over the past few years in cuddling up real nice and close to Kim Dotcom.

We won’t forget and we will remind them.

When you read the judgment there is no way they are going to overturn that on points of law. He should read up about forlorn hopes.


Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to daily sudoku?
  • Access to daily code cracker?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to podcasts?
  • Access to political polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.

48%