back to article Kiwi judge steps aside from Dotcom extradition hearings

The New Zealand judge hearing America’s Great Collapsing Extradition Case against Kim Dotcom has removed himself from the case, after telling a New Zealand forum “we have met the enemy, and he is the US”. The remark by Judge David Harvey – made to the NetHui conference while discussing the unpopular (except among international …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    The judge has an accurate perception of reality, in this case at least.

    1. LaeMing

      Re: well

      Which is why he must step down. Can't have judges who know stuff about what they are judging, they might influence the outcome of the trial all 'wrong'.

      1. Thorne

        Re: well

        "Which is why he must step down. Can't have judges who know stuff about what they are judging, they might influence the outcome of the trial all 'wrong'."

        Can't have a judge that thinks the US' case is total crap before the case starts. They're only allowed to think that the case is total crap by the end of the case.

        What they need to do is give Kim back his money and then let the US go through the court system. They might actually try to put up a real case or drop the matter instead of trying to break Kim financially by wasting time in court.

        The fact that one judge called the US the enemy and quit doesn't bode well for the US' case

    2. Anonymous Dutch Coward

      Outbreak of sanity??

      What's with these judges lately? First that Fortran-fondling programming judge that actually made sense in the Oracle<>Google case, now this? What is the world coming to?

      (Shame that this apparently enlightened judge's replacement might be a complete tool...)

    3. LarsG


      The next judge may be more pliable!

      1. Yes Me Silver badge

        Re: Sadly

        That's why it was a megablunder to reveal his private view in public at the NetHui. If he'd kept quiet, it would have left him free to judge the Mr DotCom case as he saw fit. There's a reason most judges keep their mouths shut outside court.

      2. Thorne
        Black Helicopters

        Re: Sadly

        "The next judge may be more pliable!"

        I don't think so. When you have one judge publically call the US the enemy and quit, the next can't hardly refer to "Our American Friends" without a massive public backlash. It's too public a case to keep quiet and any judge that approved the extradition or even agrees with the us will face massive scrutiny. The US has done too much in the way of dirty tatics to win. Their only hope is to break him before they lose.

  2. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

    Amerifags told!

    There will probably soon be charming ladies from [unnamed country] making allegations of sexual misconduct and molestation. Ruff noises will emerge from beltway offices and extradition hearings will begin.

  3. kain preacher

    Some thing not quite right. Why are the NZ government so gun ho to extradite him when the case is a week one ?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Money. If the legal system doesn't behave and comply to the American masters the American masters will view them as economic enemies and destroy them.

      1. kain preacher

        Um they are not even sure if this is going to make it to trial in the US. I really like to know why is it the NZ government doing all the heavy lifting. From what I've read this extradition would of been squashed any were in Europe. I get the feeling this is not about bowing down to America but he pissed some off over there in NZ.

        1. g e


          We'd hand him over with a cherry on top.

    2. Anonymous Coward 15

      The case is a week one?

      Months, or even years, would be nearer the mark.

  4. Steve Knox


    ...That will be prohibited – point one. Point two – if you do, you will be a criminal. That’s what will happen.”

    So he has two points -- and they're the same point. I actually agree with what this judge is trying to say, but the way he says it makes our position sound stupid. He sounds like he doesn't understand the basics of logic, let alone law.

    Region encoding props up the antiquated cinema industry at the expense of the consumers for whom the content is ostensibly produced. Strict enforcement makes criminals of many people who often just want to watch content that the producers don't bother encoding for their particular region.

    Was that so hard to say?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Judge Harvey was clear

      At present, circumvention of the DVD Forum's CSS region coding is only prohibited in the US. And the issue of whether CSS circumvention is a criminal act -- again, only in the US -- is still up in the air (compare the details of the MPAA, DVD-CCA, and Bernstein DeCSS court rulings, for instance).

      Judge Harvey's point was that if the TPP treaty negotiations go the way the US wants, circumvention of CSS region-coding will (a) become prohibited in NZ (where it is currently legal) and (b) that circumvention will be defined as a criminal (not civil) violation in all TPP countries (including the US, thus clearing up that question by legislative rather than judicial means).

    2. Latent

      Re: *sigh*

      >So he has two points -- and they're the same point. I actually agree with what this judge is trying to say, but the way he says it makes our position sound stupid. He sounds like he doesn't understand the basics of logic, let alone law.

      Steve he is actually stating two separate points but yes they are kind of similar. The first is that their may be a law/guideline/regulation forbidding you from doing something. But his second point is that if you ignore (or are ignorant of) this thing then it is a 'Crime' and you may be punished as such.

      Some things you can do like parking too long where you are not supposed to are prohibited and you may get a fine for such an action but it is not a 'crime'. You do not risk getting a criminal record and all the restrictions this will cause if you commit such a parking offense. So basically some things are very serious and can be criminalized while other actions are not as the law is not designed to make 90% of your population criminals for doing small things which while annoying don't cause large harm.

      So his second point is that the proposed law would make this action a criminal offense which is a lot worse than just trying to restrict this action.

      To highlight the point you do not make a law to prohibit people from stabbing their annoying neighbor in the leg with a screwdriver. You make it a criminal offense and throw the book at them when they do it. Like wise you might prohibit people from viewing DVD's they shouldn't also pass laws that turns all these people into criminals that have to bunk next to crazy guys with screwdrivers for a few months.


    3. A Dawson

      Re: *sigh*

      Actually he does have 2 points

      1. It will not be legal to buy, modify or import a device that plays content out of region (perhaps the content too).

      2. Playing content out of region will be a criminal offence not a civil one.

      But as you pointed out it could have been a bit clearer.

  5. Homer 1

    The enemy is the US.

    Finally, someone in (western) authority speaks the truth (or really just publicly admits the bloody obvious).

    It's time the rest of the world sent America and its extremist corporatocratic politics back home.

  6. sabba


    ...the three hundred pound bully in the school yard!!

    No doubt this judge will find his career prematurely over. One thing about the Yanks - they can't take criticism!!

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Echoes of Vince Cable and the Murdoch Sky takeover bid. What's the betting that the new judge will be more US friendly?

  8. Tony Paulazzo

    “We have met the enemy, and he is the U.S.”

    Should be the new rallying call for the entire world. Then maybe, just maybe, those six old men* currently running the country (ie Hollywood and their banker friends), might finally begin to hear.


    PS. Boycott Hollywood.

  9. mhenriday
    Big Brother

    Well, I for one am relieved to learn that Judge Harvey has recused himself -

    after all, judges are allowed - indeed, encouraged - to be members of societies dedicated to promoting the interests of so-called «rights holders» (MPAA, RIAA, and organisations of that ilk) and judge in cases directly affecting these interests, as is the custom here in Sweden (cf the infamous «Pirate Bay» trials), but to publicly express opinions which do not promote these interests is a No No. Order has at last been restored ; «God/the US goverment/MPAA/RIAA/'s in his Heaven/All's right with the world»....


  10. peyton?

    Am I the only one bothered

    By the use of the wrong gender pronoun to refer to a country?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Am I the only one bothered


    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Am I the only one bothered

      "wrong gender pronoun to refer to a country?"

      Which is the correct one? Depends where you are or are from I suppose. Some people refer to the fatherland, other the motherland.

      1. peyton?

        Re: Am I the only one bothered

        Well, I was going by him being an english speaker - wasn't thinking to apply towards all languages. Countries are typically "she" - just like ships. I've never heard fatherland or motherland used outside of literature. Though, I feel I've only seen fatherland used when translating from other languages, like German.

        Al's post makes sense, though I'd think when paraphrasing a quote you're allowed to paraphrase the quote.

    3. Al Jones

      Re: Am I the only one bothered

      The pronoun isn't supposed to refer to a country.

      The original quote was "We have met the enemy, and he is us"

      ( )

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like