Extracts from Judge Dawson’s 270 page judgment:
On the Applicant’s Candour
Duty of Candour and Good Faith [689] Throughout their submissions the respondents have raised many instances of what they claim to be a breach of the duty of candour and good faith by the applicant. All have been considered but not all referred to in this decision.
They have been raised mainly for matters upon which the applicant and respondents have different points of view, a relitigation of matters already decided upon by New Zealand courts, or are accusations about matters of no relevance to this eligibility hearing. This Court is satisfied that none of the submissions made individually or submissions made if considered in their entirety come close to establishing a breach of the duty of candour and good faith.
On the US Government and Movie Studios
The final comments from Judge Nevin Dawson include references to Kim Dotcom’s theories regarding the attempts to have him extradited:
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 the Democrat 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 270 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 extradition for 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. Conclusion [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. [700] The overwhelming preponderance of evidence produced by the applicant in the ROC and the SROC establishes a prima facie case to answer for all respondents on each of the counts. 271 [701] Pursuant to s 24(1) this Court finds that the respondents are all eligible for surrender on all thirteen counts in the superseding indictment.
Read the full decision of the District Court at this link
The post United States v. Dotcom & Others appeared first on LawFuel New Zealand.