Kim Dotcom: the new Litmus Test of the Police State

Mark Hubbard's picture
Submitted by Mark Hubbard on Wed, 2012-02-08 23:30

Mark Hotchin is still not charged with anything ( http://www.solopassion.com/nod... ) but Kim Dotcom is eclipsing him as the new test of how far New Zealand is down the road to our serfdom under a Police State.

With all the provisos of how I believe IP infringement to be stealing, watch all the following Campbell Live clip from last night - can't embed sorry, and Linz you'll just have to get yourself over the opening singing bit - the commentary from the middle is significant:

http://www.3news.co.nz/Dotcom-...

Then remember how the Keystone cops in NZ raided this man and his family (including nannies and three children) from helicopters, fully armed and breaking doors down with axes.

And the goons are not stopping their complete disregard for property rights and freedoms yet. Just this morning from http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/...

A $4 million lifestyle block belonging to the man at the center of an international internet piracy case, was seized on Thursday morning.

The New Zealand Ministry of Economic Development says the property, belonging to Kim Dotcom at Coatsville, Auckland, was seized so it can be inspected, secured and valued.

The ministry says it is not the Chrisco mansion that is also on the property, that the family rents and lives in.

The ministry was acting on an order issued last week by the High Court in Auckland, ordering immediate restraint of all property, vehicles, and jewelry belonging to Mr Dotcom.

I don't like resorting to swearing, I've got this old fashioned part of me that says if you resort to swearing you've lost the argument, but this over-the-top goonish thuggery from the State, a State that should only exist to protect and defend our rights and freedoms, is fucking mental.

I now hope Kim Dotcom gets out from under this and sues the arse off every individual hiding behind Nanny's rotten ruddy skirts to perpetrate this ongoing offense again every individual in New Zealand, because if they can do this to Dotcom, they can do it to you. Mind you, as with Alan Hubbard and Mark Hotchin, how he's supposed to do that when they've cut him off from all his money (his wife has no money to live on and exists on charity), he has the tax-base of New Zealand and the US being used against him, and the time this will take, going from Hotchin's case, will be measured by years.

Rand do we need a Kiwi Spring. We're way, way, way out there beyond the free, classical liberal society. Looking back, I can't even see it anymore, it's just a thing of nostalgia.


( categories: )

Judge can release the

Leonid's picture

Judge can release the prisoner on bail and in any case there is no point to conduct trial before trial-you don't have the all information. The whole purpose of the trial is to listen to the both sides.

Understand the process

damien's picture

Mark Hubbard said: "As Leonid has quite clearly said, we are working on the basis he is innocent, 'until' proven guilty."

Yes, as we should, but we should also understand the process.

For example, in a murder case, if the state is able to gather sufficient evidence on a suspect (such as the murder weapon with the suspect's prints on it), and they are able to convince a judge of that evidence's potential validity, then the judge will issue a warrant for arrest. At this point, the suspect is still presumed innocent even after arrested, and the state will have to use the legal process to bring that evidence to trial and convince a jury or other judge for a conviction of guilt and further sentencing.

In essence, this is a system of checks and balances and is considered a pretty fair system. If the state consistently abuses its powers of arrest in collusion with warrant-happy judges, then this could be a topic of discussion, but I just don't see that case here. Why?

The answers are in the indictment, and I would not be betting against the state here, this guy will have a very difficult time maintaing his innocence: http://www.wired.com/images_bl.... A good tell though without the indictment, is if they were flying in on helicopters armed to the teeth, in an internationally coordinated raid, to arrest and bring to trial a CIVILIAN, I guarantee you the state (in all jurisdictions) are confident enough of being able to get a conviction (ie, they have tons of evidence and think he's guilty as hell).

Just a few juicy nuggets:

"for much of its operation, the Mega Conspiracy has offered an "Uploader Rewards" Program, which promised premium subscribers transfers of cash and other financial
incentives to upload popular works, including copyrighted works, to computer servers under the
Mega Conspiracy's direct control and for the Conspiracy's ultimate financial benefit."

"In contrast to the public who is required to significantly rely on third party
indexes, members of the Conspiracy have full access to the listings of actual files that are stored
on their servers. Conspirators have searched the internal database for their
associates and themselves so that they may directly access copyright-infringing content on
servers controlled by the Mega Conspiracy."

So, innocent until proven guilty, yes, but wooof, if they have admissable evidence of principals using copyrighted material for their own use after receiving DMCA notices of abuse and were actually paying people to upload copyrighted material!!! Talk about an uphill battle... will be interesting in how it plays out, but I think it wise not to jump to conclusions either way.

Mark...

Marcus's picture

It is just as well for you that the NZ police and law office are so incompetent.

Or perhaps in the long term, not?

Laughing my arse off.

Mark Hubbard's picture

I'm out all day, but you can bet I'll be coming back to this, for there's lessons on how bureaucracy has taken us all so far from reality and into the playground, that even the bully who makes the rules can't follow them anymore:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/n...


Internet tycoon Kim Dotcom's cash, cars and property were seized using a court order which should never have been granted.

A judgment from Justice Judith Potter on Friday declared the restraining order "null and void" and having "no legal effect".

The blunder might now lead to the beleaguered internet mogul getting back everything that was stripped away in the surprise dawn raid on his mansion eight weeks ago.

Police commissioner Peter Marshall and the Government's legal advisers at the Crown Law Office have admitted making an embarrassing "procedural error" when filing documents to seize Dotcom's property.

Potter said Marshall's application for the restraining order had "confused" legal moves by opting for one in which Dotcom was not given a chance to mount a defence. It meant Marshall applied for the "incorrect order".

Potter said he had sought to correct the mistake after the raid by applying for the proper order, retrospectively listing assets already seized.

The new order had been granted on a temporary basis, but Potter said she would soon rule on whether the mistake meant the internet mogul should get his property back.

the court

Brant Gaede's picture

The court is part and parcel of the state unless it demonstrates it isn't.

--Brant
disingenuous bull shit--we are talking about freedom or nothing worth talking about

Innocent

Damien Grant's picture

Being the muddled old statist that I am, I take the view that yes, Mr .Con is innocent and his assets are his, until he is convicted.

However, the state, if it wishes to freeze his assets, must first convince a grey haired old judge that there is sufficient evidence that his assets should be frozen and his libery should be curtailed.

The state failed to convince the judge on the issue of bail but did succeed on the issue of freezing his assets. Indeed, the state is failing to hold Mr Hotchin's assets as well, of late.

The state did not simply seize assets, they had to ask the court's permission and provide evidence of their case.

Again, there are better causes for the champions of solo. Interest free student loans! There is some theft going on there.

:-)

reed's picture

Refer to Reed's commentary. The shaggy-haired little rat-blighter had me over a barrell on the issue that maybe this is a civil matter.

Oh dear.

Mark Hubbard's picture

You are both working from the basis that he is innocent.

Unlike you to fall down on the details. As Leonid has quite clearly said, we are working on the basis he is innocent, 'until' proven guilty.

Mark and Leonid

Damien Grant's picture

There are competing interests here.

Dotcom may be innocent, but if he is not, does not the state have an obligation to the victims to prevent the dissipation of their assets?

You are both working from the basis that he is innocent. If he is not, they are not his assets.

Refer to Reed's commentary. The shaggy-haired little rat-blighter had me over a barrell on the issue that maybe this is a civil matter.

As for the data lost by users of Mega Upload, well, yes, I agree that is unfair, but if a bank goes bust honest people lose their money.

It is messy and I do think that if the state siezed the assets they have a duty of care to the owners of third party material. This is a seperate matter. I understand the over-reach and I'm not happy about it. I just dislike copyright theft more.

Odd, given my dodgy freewheeling past, but that is how I think.

The Catherine Wheel is being reinforced to cope with Mr Com. It will be here shortly.

Many US State Departments were using Megaupload

Mark Hubbard's picture

For a site supposedly with a technology only used for piracy, what's this, wait a minute, it had perfectly legitimate users using it for what it was designed for - Dotcom: US officials among biggest Mega users:


Internet tycoon Kim Dotcom has claimed US officials were among the biggest users of his Megaupload website before it was shut down for alleged copyright infringement.

...

Website TorrentFreak reports Dotcom is taking legal action in an attempt to "reunite" former Megaupload users with data they download from the site.

His investigations uncovered many US Government officials who held Megaupload accounts, it said.

"Guess what - we found a large number of Mega accounts from US Government officials including the Department of Justice and the US Senate."

"I hope we will soon have permission to give them and the rest of our users access to their files," Dotcom told the website.

Many people complained of losing legitimate personal files after Megaupload was shut down in January.

Note for Damien. Had you realised we're not just dealing with the property of Dotcom here? But the property of every legitimate user of that site, now frozen? Possibly the private property of tens or hundreds of thousands, even millions, of individuals. When did the State grant itself that right?

"if he guilty then those

Leonid's picture

"if he guilty then those whose assets he has converted are entitled to have them frozen."

Exactly, if.

Leonid

Damien Grant's picture

See my answer to Reed.

However, copyright theft is still theft.

I agree it is tough on mr .com if he is innocent but if he guilty then those whose assets he has converted are entitled to have them frozen.

Anyway, issue has been done.

Reed

Leonid's picture

"NZ has a Governor General who is supposed to strike down unconstitutional(?) laws on behalf of the Queen - however our GG is now appointed by Parliament and the Queen considers NZ to be an independent nation."

I see. Queen lost any hope for NZ.

Damien Grant

Leonid's picture

"There are better causes for those who profess a belief in the sanctity of property rights than this pirate."

Well. if he's already sentenced, why to bother with courts? But somehow I feel that a real pirate would hide his loot before the state could have a chance to freeze it. If Dotcom is an alleged thief, than state has to bring him to the court to prove this allegations. Until than he has as much rights as you and me and any mcdonald worker. As far as I understood he never tried to escape or dissipate his wealth. Nether he tried to resist arrest with guns. He also not a murderer or rapist who should be isolated as a matter of urgency. If anything, he violated one of the government regulations which objectivity is highly questionable. Such a disputes are usually resolved in the civil court. So why all this totalitarian style overkill with helicopters, armed cops and axes? Does government simply wanted to show who is the boss?

Reading Reed

Damien Grant's picture

I disagree on the copyright issue but that is a personal preference. You make a valid point about the tenancy issue and I do not think I have a cogent response.

The dispute between Samsung and Apple over the IP of the iPad and iPhone has not been criminalised, so maybe you have a point.

Still, it is hard for me to care about someone who I believe is a thief. I do not care about third world hunger, so Kim .Com has no chance of getting any sympathy from me.

Change

Brant Gaede's picture

Things are changing so fast the law follows way behind.

--Brant

Damien

reed's picture

Theft is a criminal matter, Reed.
Yes, but copyright should be a civil matter.

I've had tenants stop paying rent - this is more akin to theft than copyright infringement. Non payment of rent is handled in a civil forum (the Tenancy Tribunal).

Stealing your intellectual property is no different from stealing your television.
Copyright infringement is more akin to having a dispute over a television - which would normally be handled in a civil court.

We were all pointing at the Chinese a few years ago for stealing ideas from western firms. How is DotCom different?
He's not stealing ideas from western firms and he's not Chinese.

I like Mark's analogy

Jules Troy's picture

The road is a good analogy, the man stole nothing I mean why not charge the owners of the entire internet as illegal traffic of all manor of things happen on the big highway.. Why single out the owner of a small tertiary artery? 

Reed

Damien Grant's picture

Theft is a criminial matter, Reed. Stealing your intellectual property is no different from stealing your television.

I like the idea that the state is coming down hard on this. We were all pointing at the Chinese a few years ago for stealing ideas from western firms. How is DotCom different?

One law for all

reed's picture

Disputes about copyright infringement should be a civil matter - the RIAA should have to prove its case in a civil court.

The DotCom case is an example of Government(s ) doing the bidding of big business.

9/10!

Damien Grant's picture

An excellent grade for an old muddled statist like me.

Why thank you Mark.

Mark

Damien Grant's picture

If it waddles like a duck, it if quacks like a duck, if it looks like a duck, then it is a duck.

In my view, Mr DC is a thief. This is not an objective carefully nuanced opinion but a subjective knee-jerk gut feeling. If I had to sit on a jury for him I would weight the evidence honestly but as a member of the peanut gallery i have no hesitation in throwing peanuts at him.

It is possible I am wrong. I have not read the evidence, do not intend to. If I had to evaluate carefully every view I ever held on someone I would never get anything done. Heuristics. Best evolutionary trait ever.

And as for Mrs Dotcom... Criminals often exaggerate and even if this was true, she had to stand outside for an hour. I still do not care. She is either a willing accomplice in her husbands crimes or in the receipt of stolen goods. The fact that she had to stand outside her stolen multiple million dollar palace does not cause me to have any sympathy for her. If KDC is acquitted, she is entitled to an apology, but prima facie, she has a case to answer.

Innocent until proven guilty?

reed's picture

Leonid -
There is much wrong with NZ law.

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't always apply in NZ, for example, parents can have their children taken off them based solely on the beliefs of a social worker. No trial is ever required and there is no way to appeal.

Courts regularly suppress information - making it is an offense to publicly discuss the details of some trials.

NZ has a doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty i.e. Parliament rules over the people like a king.

NZ has a Governor General who is supposed to strike down unconstitutional(?) laws on behalf of the Queen - however our GG is now appointed by Parliament and the Queen considers NZ to be an independent nation.

We have no constitution - although some argue we have an unwritten constitution.

We have a Bill of Rights which is explicitly inferior to all other laws.

Leonid

Damien Grant's picture

If Dotcom is a thief, as the US government alleges, then what should the state do about this?

The states most important role (possibly its only one) in the libertarian model, is the protection of a citizens personal and property rights.

KD.C was engaged in stealing, it is alleged, other people's property, then the state has an obligation to both hold him to account and to ensure that the stolen property is not dissipiated. It also has an obligation to him to protect his rights and his property.

The state has conflicting duties. It is managing these well I think by ensuring he does not flee justice, but leaving him at liberty, and by freezing his assets but not confiscating them.

There are better causes for those who profess a belief in the sanctity of property rights than this pirate. The mcdonalds worker who is paying taxes so middle class children can get a subsided education come to mind.

Where is that Catherine Wheel?

Damien Grant

Leonid's picture

"I do not care about Kim Dotcom. He is accused of being a thief, the state is constrained by an effective and independent judiciary. He will have his day in court."

In other words he has been punished, his rights violated, his property was taken away from him by the state even before his day in court. And what happened to the maxim " Innocent until proven guilty?"- a principle which had been established already in the 3rd century A.C. It seems that this time travel is even faster than I thought.

Damien

Mark Hubbard's picture

I have it on good advice a number of senior politicians are mighty angry with your illusion shattering money printing to bankruptcy op-ed on Herald this morning (I'll give you 9/10 - you'll never get a 10 from me, as I know you're a muddled Statist under the cloak). How sure are you this brute treatment won't be dished out to you with society on the Police State track it is at the moment.

From: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/n...

Before appearing at court, Manila-born Mona Dotcom wrote a heartfelt plea in support of the bail appeal.

She also revealed her distress at the raid by police armed with automatic weapons on January 20.

"It was very noisy and intimidating," said Mona Dotcom.

"Although I was obviously pregnant and still in nightclothes, the police told me to go outside and wait on the grass which was wet."

Court records show Mona Dotcom spent more than an hour waiting after the dawn raid began the family's nightmare. Along with staff, she was kept by armed police on a small grassed area outside the $30 million Coatesville mansion.

"They would not let me move. I asked several times to go inside to see the children but was not allowed."

She said she and others were allowed inside the mansion to a lounge where she could sit, still under armed police guard. It was another "20 or 30 minutes" before she could see the three children who were "all very frightened".

"The police searched the house with their guns, including where the children's rooms were. The nannies and the children are still nervous and upset after the events of that day."

I'd expect a report like that from mafia Russia, not from a free Western country.

And by the way, you say: Given he makes his money from property theft, I am pleased to see the state moving against him...

So you've hung him out to dry, guilty, without even a trial? What happened to the rule of law in your head then?

Leonid

Damien Grant's picture

There has been a massive expansion of the state in the economic sphere, especially during the last government, which is not being rolled back by this one. This, I think, is where we should be outraged.

I do not care about Kim Dotcom. He is accused of being a thief, the state is constrained by an effective and independent judiciary. He will have his day in court.

He was raided, sure, but he also had armed guards, guns and a safe room. If Dotcom lived in a Mt Eden villa there would not have been helicopters. I have been in hostile raids, you always take far more resources than you need because you are never sure what you will find.

Given he makes his money from property theft, I am pleased to see the state moving against him, rather than wasting resources on chasing people selling party pills.

Damien Grant

Leonid's picture

"Nothing that has happened has been outside the law "

"Then remember how the Keystone cops in NZ raided this man and his family (including nannies and three children) from helicopters, fully armed and breaking doors down with axes."

The King's orders also were called laws, even before Magna Carta. According to this report NZ went all the way back to that time. It doesn't matter that order had been issued not by King, but by the High court which never actually heard the case before committing this plunder. The whole idea of Magna Carta was a prevention of this kind of power abuse. The fact they won after it in the courts only proves that they had been unjustly abused- a thing which in the times of Magna Carta could cost to the king his crown. That why I think NZ is traveling back in time and fast.

Tory

Damien Grant's picture

The Americans rejected British authority but did not reject the concept of laws.

then

Brant Gaede's picture

"then I accept them."

You are aware, of course, that not accepting "them" caused the American Revolution? Are you a Tory?

--Brant

Brant

Damien Grant's picture

Frick. That is a deep question.

I despise immoral laws, such as those that proscribe narcotics, I think civil disobedience is needed, but outside that, if the laws are imposed by an elected parliament then I accept them.

The great victory of the magna carta was that the king's power was forcibly restrained, and that first win established the rule of law and not the arbitrary rule of man.

So I support the rule of law, even where it imposes on freedom because that is where, today, we are.

Laws, however, worry me because of their ability to legitimise the dispossession of a citizen's property rights where they were at first used to protect citizens against the crown.

So, I am for freedom first. Freedom is the governing principle, laws are merely things that can advance or hinder.

Damien

Brant Gaede's picture

Are you for the law first, to start, or freedom? I am talking about theoretical construction, not the end or contemporary result. Where or what is your foundation?

--Brant

Leonid

Damien Grant's picture

Epic Fail dude.

"...but by lawful judgement by his peers, or by the law of the land."

Nothing that has happened has been outside the law and both dotcom and hotchin have had wins against the state in the courts.

Really?

Jules Troy's picture

So how long before hotchin cracks? 15 months before even being charged? Sitting in limbo. Another 2 years and he will probably plead guilty to anything if they give him a glimmer of hope of being released "time served".  They do this sort of thing to people that ARE innocent when the government KNOWS they have no case or a weak case at best.  The weaker the case is then the longer they let them rot.  Happens all the time.

"NO Freeman shall be taken or

Leonid's picture

"NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right." Magna Carta , clause 29 Year 1297

As far as I remember NZ is at least officially still under the protection of the Crown and its government should abide its laws. I wonder why New-Zealanders decided to go 715 years back in time. They invented time machine?

JT

Damien Grant's picture

In my extensive experience innocent people do not plead guilty.

Hotchin

Damien Grant's picture

I agree on hotchin. It has been over a year, justice delayed and all that. Likewise dotcom, he should get a quick trial, but of course Mr Dotcom may choose to delay his own justice. That would be a little different.

Makes you wonder...

Jules Troy's picture

How many innocent people that are incarcerated plead guilty just to get out of jail faster than if they sat in remanded custody awaiting trial for 2 years after prelims just to get thier day in court.  Hotchkin has been languishing for how long? 15 months? That is a travesty of "justice".

Damien

Mark Hubbard's picture

Kim DC may have had in intention to do honest work but that does not matter if he is later found guilty of property theft.

... how much later? The substantive thing here is he's not been put on trial yet. If there has to be asset seizure, and I'm thinking of Hotchin again, then there should be immediate law passed, under urgency, that when an individual has an asset freeze put on them, the State must bring him or her to trial within two months. That's more than fair. It is no excuse that the court system can't handle such a time frame: taking away a man's means is almost the ultimate action the State can take, so the onus is on it to provide swift justice. And all they would need do to get time back it eliminate every drugs case, and every tax case (even though that would put half the legal fraternity into other occupations.

But Dotcom has not been tried. The issues are not simple: I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt until I hear the facts: all of them.

Troy!

Damien Grant's picture

The term is a 'reasonable fee'.

If found guilty

Jules Troy's picture

There will stand Damian ready to liquidate his assets at behest of the state for a nice profit?

King Con

Damien Grant's picture

The fact that the state has massive resources and he does not maybe unfair but that does not give him any credence in my view. His assets have been frozen but not confiscated, the courts, much to the frustration on the combined resources of both the us and New Zealand governments, have kept him at liberty.

Kim DC may have had in intention to do honest work but that does not matter if he is later found guilty of property theft.

Damien

Mark Hubbard's picture

If he is personally stealing copyright material, then he should pay for that. But no case has been heard, yet, like Hotchin , he has his life frozen, and lets face it, as one man against the funding of every US taxpayer, he doesn't stand a chance, because while cutting him off from his money, they'll bind him up for years. Are you happy with the State having that much power?

And the road analogy does work: by the sound of it many artists were using his site because it offered them a service, upload of large files, that profited their own businesses.

And just perhaps the real story here will be what Dotcom was really working on: a service whereby artists could market themselves direct to their fan bases, with all the accounting functions required for that, and avoid all the middle men - because funnily enough, the real pressure against him is coming not from the artists, so much, as from the record labels in America, who have the most to lose from such a model. And those record labels are able to use, here, the shock and awe power of the FBI, the US tax pool, the NZ tax pool, and our keystone cops, to further their profits via the iron fist of the State.

The irony of this thread would in the first instance appear to be that I have spent far too much of my life arguing for intellectual property against the thieving anarchists at mises.org: but in truth there is no irony, because I believe the issues are different here. And over-arching everything is use of massive State power focused on one individual: and I find it ugly, and frightening.

You've finally got the battle down to a principle, Damien, but I reckon you're chasing the wrong one Eye For me, the principles here start with these asset freezes the State seems to be able to place so easily, and with no temporal limits. No justice in that.

Connect the Dot Cons

Damien Grant's picture

I do not think Kim is innocent. His site was all about enticing people to send in pirated material.

It annoys me how freely copy-right protections are violated and intellectual property is stolen. It is unfair that Kim Dotcom is being singled out but so what? Perhaps some of those running more professional cyber-lockers will be a little more circumspect.

The road analogy is not perfect. If you build a road that has only one destination, the back of a farmers paddock, and the only people who use it are sheep rustlers, and you put a big sign at the front of the road saying “Free Sheep”, and then charge people to use the road and for pliers for cutting the farmers fence, then I expect the farmer will be mightily pissed when he finds out what you have done.

He profited off others stolen intellectual property. To hell with him. Put him on the Catherine Wheel.

Chris Keall of NBR believes

Mark Hubbard's picture

Chris Keall of NBR believes he sees a flaw in Dotcom's defence: http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/f...

Namely, Megaupload was paying incentives to up-loaders. Given that in his article he referred to my own private road analogy (obviously he reads me on SOLO Eye ) my comment to his thread uses the same analogy again:


How do the cash incentives change the 'road' argument you give? That is, if I build a private road, I am not responsible for third parties, such as burglars using it to conduct their burglaries. If my road is being paid for by tolls, then I might rightly give a discount to heavy users of the road, such as freight companies, etc, to encourage such legitimate users to keep using my road, given I've just learned another individual is building another road to compete with mine. This changes nothing as regards the morality or principles involved. I am not responsible for third parties, and the law doesn't make me so.

Also, watching the last Campbell piece, Dotcom was putting at least half a million dollars into the local community/economy monthly ... he was doing more for the local economy than anyone posting here. This doesn't change the morality or the legal principles involved in his case, either, I say it only against the whiners above who think it justified he is not allowed access to his own money, and who seem to believe it is an offense just to spend money above a certain point. No wonder the West is on the slippery slope to serfdom.

O man

Jules Troy's picture

Galt help us all!

At least Forest Gump was funny.  Not to mention kind hearted...

Does NZ have a draconian law

Mark Hubbard's picture

Does NZ have a draconian law like that?

Variations on a theme, but to an extent yes.

We have daft laws known as Working for Families, which have turned over half the families in NZ into beneficiaries of the State. I've just done a tax return for a family today who earned over $80,000, yet still get a WFF credit of $5,600.

More closely related to your point, we have Child Support, payable by ex's, and administered by IRD. To be honest, it's the one thing administered by IRD I don't view as a tax, because if the father (in the majority of cases) is not paying for his own children, then I have to. Though of course because it is a State enforced scheme, and IRD are involved, the whole scheme is filled with unjust inconsistencies and causes as many, if not more, problems than it solves. It shouldn't be there. But then, the State pays people to have babies, and much of the violence that permeates our society is bred from that very fact, as with every nonsense policy since to try and remedy the unintended (but knowable) consequences of it.

Honestly, and you'll find this a stunner: the politicians making our laws are many times stupider than Burnsy. Frightening, isn't it.

I wonder..

Jules Troy's picture

I live in Canada, in 1996 the government in thier infinite stupidity invented a law called locai Parentis.

No one knew or heard of it.  Many still do not know. It means "In Place of the parent".  What it means is that if you live with a woman for one year that has children and it doesnt work out the courts will hold you liable for child support.  Not partial reponsibility split between you and the biological father but full responsibility based on your income and number of children.  The natural father is also reponsible based on his income.  Rather a good gig if your a mother.  All money paid is not tax deductable and also does not need to be claimed by the parent recieving the funds.  Does NZ have a draconian law like that?

I only mentioned Koontz...

Ross Elliot's picture

...because he is a popular writer of fiction that made a good point.

I vaguely remember reading

Mark Hubbard's picture

I vaguely remember reading some Koontz at high school. And yes, there are so many inroads being made into our basic freedoms, and no will to fight it.

funny that

Jules Troy's picture

It is usually the crown that witholds information guess they dont like thier own tactics.  Pretty deplorable.

Dean Koontz...

Ross Elliot's picture

...wrote about this in Dark Rivers of the Heart back in 1994: the idea that the state could freeze property upon suspicion and require proof of innocence before thawing it. It was mainly related to drug proceeds in the early days but has now been extended to many other areas.

It's a complete flip of innocent until proven guilty, and in fact, in abstract, is denial of the right to silence.

New Zealanders should further worry about the changes proposed to alter the criminal proceedings requirements whereby the person arrested (the defendant) will be required to give details of their defence under penalty in court if they fail to do so. The Brits have had this for years. Until now it has been that you have the right to remain silent. Now, as per Britain, we will have the dastardly warning upon arrest that "should you not divulge anything which you may later rely upon in court, then it may harm your defence".

In other words, tell us now, or have it incriminate you later. You are effectively denied the right to silence. In effect, you are in contempt if you do so.

I wonder how many years he'll get?

Sandi's picture

If you watch my post "Expendable - A Political Sacrifice", you will see the potential parallel between Dotcom and Schapelle Corby. She has been locked in a cage for 20 years and having all the royalties she made on her book and interviews (to pay for legal fee's) stolen by the government. Regardless of the outcome of Dotcom, both of these people have never harmed anyone and the full weight of force has been brought down upon them.

Dotcom is utterly, utterly, stuffed.

Mark Hubbard's picture

US Govt 'throwing everything' at Dotcom

The United States Government is throwing "everything in the book" at Kim Dotcom, say top forensic accountants. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is even expected to sign the final extradition request.

Charges against the founder of Megaupload, a file-sharing website, go beyond copyright infringements and include money laundering and racketeering.

PricewaterhouseCoopers director of forensic services Alex Tan said it followed a tendency by US prosecutors to take a "very wide interpretation of the law".

"It's a case that has demanded the world's attention. If they're going to do this, and spend all this money and go through governments, it's not for a two-month jail sentence.

"They're going to throw everything in the book and be very good at applying laws," Mr Tan said.

An extradition request was part of a reciprocal treaty and not out of order - but it was nevertheless delicate and conducted at the highest levels, he said.

"It's not done at the local level. It's most likely that the Secretary of State - Hillary Clinton - personally signs it.

Ten years ago I would have accepted this at face value and said Dotcom's stuffed: good.

Not now.

I don't trust the State anymore. Especially when it is applied against an individual to this extent. And note how it's sensationalised. 'Money laundering and racketeering' - yikes, this bloke's bad, bad, bad.

But wait a minute. What does this mean? Money laundering is simply the transacting and passing of money from crime, so in Dotcom's case, so long as they prove - and dependent on - IP infringement, then they've automatically got him on the evil sounding laundering. So it's mainly a way of making a crime sound more serious, and better, for Nanny, justifies applying more punitive measures and penalties.

But the significant thing about this post is for the first time I really do realise I no longer trust the Western Nanny State ... not a shred. Not for Truth.

They're going to throw everything in the book and be very good at applying laws,"

Yes, I have no doubt the authorities are going to be very good at 'applying laws', and I would further surmise that will be the case whether he has broken any laws or not. And morality won't even enter into it.

Still, at at least the Keystone cops had a day out off the leash.

The story is dead, Dotcom is buried, regardless of Truth. I'm thinking of learning Russian.

Yes, German.

Mark Hubbard's picture

Yes, German.

What nationality is Kim.com?

Marcus's picture

Sounds like he is German.

If he clears his name this will be great advertising for him and his website.

Not that it justifies an unlawful arrest and trial.

Two other things: apparently

Mark Hubbard's picture

Two other things: apparently the confiscation of property under the proceeds of crime law, applies before the supposed perpetrator is even charged, otherwise, Mrs Dotcom could feed herself on her own money tonight, not charity.

Also, regarding the bail, as Kim Dotcom was not granted it, such hearings don't involve the facts either, as when the judge concerned denied bail, he admitted the United Police State of America authorities had submitted no, repeat, no, evidence of any crimes yet.

Addendum

Mark Hubbard's picture

I've linked this post to the NBR thread of the same story, and added the following:

And I note civil liberties advocate, Peter Williams, seems to be missing in action on the abuses of the civil liberties of Dotcom, Hotchin, and the former Alan Hubbard. Apparently we're not all equal after all: you only get to have civil liberties if you're poor, 'disadvantaged' and violent.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.