sharetrader
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678
Results 106 to 110 of 110
  1. #106
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    LA/ChCh/AKL
    Posts
    984

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minimoke View Post
    If what he did was arguably legal then that's the end of the story. Nothing to see here. Move on

    If you want to send in the attack dogs for every morally questionable act a person does you are going to need a big kennel full of the things. And that's putting aside the morally questionable act of the illegal filming of a copyrighted movie by an individual. (what do you think happens to that filmed movie?)
    Not looking good for him...

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/105...st-extradition

  2. #107
    Guru peat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Whanganui, New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,654

    Default

    apparently hes taking it to the Supreme Court but I wonder if softy Andrew Little will rule in his favour if it goes to that.
    For clarity, nothing I say is advice....

  3. #108
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    LA/ChCh/AKL
    Posts
    984

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peat View Post
    apparently hes taking it to the Supreme Court but I wonder if softy Andrew Little will rule in his favour if it goes to that.
    Soft how about legally consistent...

    The High Court had accepted that Parliament made a clear and deliberate decision not to criminalise this type of alleged conduct by internet service providers, making them not responsible for the acts of their users.

    For the Court to then permit the same conduct to be categorised as a type of fraud disrupts Parliament’s clear intent. The High Court decision means that Parliament’s intended protection for internet service providers is now illusory. That will be a concern for internet service providers and impact on everyone’s access to the internet.

    So COA has upheld that one assumes...hmmm

  4. #109
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,400

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raz View Post
    Soft how about legally consistent...

    The High Court had accepted that Parliament made a clear and deliberate decision not to criminalise this type of alleged conduct by internet service providers, making them not responsible for the acts of their users.

    For the Court to then permit the same conduct to be categorised as a type of fraud disrupts Parliament’s clear intent. The High Court decision means that Parliament’s intended protection for internet service providers is now illusory. That will be a concern for internet service providers and impact on everyone’s access to the internet.

    So COA has upheld that one assumes...hmmm
    Now 7 years an possibly a fortune spent by NZ trying to prove a case instigated by the US.
    A lot about this case seems totally inconsistent about NZ law.
    I see cases reported-one last week-where a case the police had brought which was thrown out-the meth dealer was in possession of the drug and money but the photo the police took didnt clearly show if a cellphone was placed in the
    bag.
    The information collected and used by the US was illegally obtained
    Surely they have overstepped the mark and the case would have been thrown out if he was a drug dealer.
    Yet instead our courts have used a different standard at the bequest of the US.

  5. #110
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fish View Post
    Now 7 years an possibly a fortune spent by NZ trying to prove a case instigated by the US.
    A lot about this case seems totally inconsistent about NZ law.
    I see cases reported-one last week-where a case the police had brought which was thrown out-the meth dealer was in possession of the drug and money but the photo the police took didnt clearly show if a cellphone was placed in the
    bag.
    The information collected and used by the US was illegally obtained
    Surely they have overstepped the mark and the case would have been thrown out if he was a drug dealer.
    Yet instead our courts have used a different standard at the bequest of the US.
    The deep state plays by it's own rules, one only needs to look at the Julian Assange case to understand this.

    "When exposing a crime is treated as committing a crime, you are being ruled by criminals" - Edward Snowden.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •