Posts by Sacha
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom vs. The Teapot Tapes, in reply to Andrew Geddis,
the "public interest" requirement of the Solicitor General's prosecution guidelines
Any handy writeups on what that is and some case examples, mayhaps?
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom vs. The Teapot Tapes, in reply to Andrew Geddis,
Nothing to see here.
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom vs. The Teapot Tapes, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
they could have focused on issues about which they can actually have an influence: political oversight of our intelligence agencies, and possible law changes, for example.
Which is what their probable coalition partners Labour did in calling for a broader inquiry. Complementary action, you might say.
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom: Questions and Answers, in reply to Rob Stowell,
JK’s being so out of the loop is unlikely
Utterly implausible. Campbell Live's story five months ago about who knew what is still pertinent - detailing the many people and organisations who would have to have not told Key anything. Here's the PM responding 2 days later. Watch the clips and decide for yourself if it stacks up.
-
Here's the show OnDemand. An interesting watch.
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom: Questions and Answers, in reply to Stephen Judd,
The thing about cockup vs conspiracy is that if there is a pattern of consistent cockup, I still want something done.
Same. And if any person who is entrusted with an oversight role doesn't, then I want them out of the way. This stuff is not some kind of game.
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom: Questions and Answers, in reply to nzlemming,
That's a relief, because he frankly came across like a tired old fool on TV3 News last night. Hardly reassuring, though I've never doubted if there's any lying or conniving for plausible deniability it's from senior Ministers.
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom: Questions and Answers, in reply to mark taslov,
The company was shut down by the US
and I'd expect them to pay, yes.
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom: Questions and Answers, in reply to Lucy Telfar Barnard,
that the senior management are then exempt from prosecution (because they didn't do the intercepting) but the lower-level employees who actually did the intercepting get prosecuted? That doesn't seem the slightest bit fair.
Yet our honourable PM has been doing his best today to do exactly that by blaming the whole thing on a 'mistake' by one bad apple. His schultzy hands? Perfectly clean, of course.
-
ACLU notes increase in warrantless intercepts in US.