We
live in a a time of cover-up and lies, lies and more lies.
John
Banks conviction overturned
28
November, 2014
Amanda
Banks has emerged as an extremely good wife to John Banks with her
"obsessive" detective work turning up crucial evidence
which led to the former Act Leader's electoral fraud conviction being
overturned today.
Mr
Banks was today celebrating after the Court of Appeal overturned his
conviction and ordered a new trial.
He
was convicted in the High Court earlier this year after failing to
disclose donations from Kim Dotcom to his Auckland Mayoralty campaign
in 2010.
Mr
Banks appealed, introducing affidavits from two US-based businessmen
who he says were at the same lunch at which Mr Dotcom claimed
donations were discussed. The pair - David Schaeffer and Jeffery
Karnes - both said donations were not discussed at that lunch.
John Banks in the dock in Auckland's High Court before his sentencing in August.
Photo
/ Richard Robinson
In
a statement, the Court of Appeal said it had decided to admit the
evidence. "Although it was not fresh evidence, the Court was
satisfied that if the evidence has been before [High Court judge]
Justice Wylie the outcome may have been different. It was in the
interests of justice to admit the evidence."
Mrs
Banks, who now lives apart from her Auckland based husband in
Queenstown, was present at the lunch in question and was a key
witness in the High Court hearing.
The
Court of Appeal's decision notes Mrs Banks ``was stung by the Judge's
opinion of her reliability".
"She
became quite obsessed as she puts it, with identifying the two
Americans.
"She
recalled that a trans-Pacific communications cable had been discussed
at the lunch and scoured news articles on the topic, eventually
finding one which mentioned that Mr Dotcom had endorsed such a
project and was trying to organize a group of investors to fund it."
Mrs
Banks' research also identified the second businessman and Mr Banks'
lawyers contacted to two men and secured sworn affidavits from them.
But
Dotcom this afternoon told the Herald: "I'm just shaking my over
John Banks. I just don't understand how he thinks this is going to
change things."
He said the meeting with the American businessmen took place "a couple of days before the donation meeting".
He said the meeting with the American businessmen took place "a couple of days before the donation meeting".
"I
think the meetings with the Americans was either on the 5th or 6th
(of June 2010) and the meeting with the donations was I believe on
the 9th.
"The
cheques were dated on the day when I signed them which I think was
the 9th.
"What
Mr Banks is trying to do is use another meeting that had nothing to
do with the donations and make it about the donations.
"That
also doesn't work because in his own police evidence he has himself
said that we did have discussions about donations."
Mr
Banks told the Herald he
had not yet seen the judgement and had only learned of the decision
via the media however it was "more than pretty good, it's great
news."
"Remember
what I said on day one - I would never ever knowingly sign a false
electoral return."
He
will speak to media further later this afternoon.
In
finding Mr Banks guilty, the High Court's Justice Edwin Wylie had
said Kim Dotcom and his wife Mona had been credible witnesses. The
Court of Appeal statement said that its decision did not mean that
they were unreliable witnesses. "It merely establishes that the
evidence should be reconsidered at a new trial."
Mona Dotcom was found to be a credible witness. Photo / Doug Sherring
Mr
Banks had consistently maintained the donations, and a further
donation from SkyCity, were anonymous.
During
the judge-alone trial in June, the Crown argued Banks' failed mayoral
campaign received two $25,000 donations from Megastuff Ltd on Mr
Dotcom's behalf in June 2010 and $15,000 from SkyCity in May that
year.
On
August 1 in the High Court at Auckland, Justice Edwin Wylie sentenced
the 68-year-old to two months' community detention and 100 community
work, Mr Banks said he would appeal, citing "compelling new
evidence".
Justice
Wylie had ruled the charge in relation to the SkyCity donation was
not proven but he believed Mr Dotcom was telling the truth.
Kim Dotcom gives evidence in Auckland's High Court in May. Photo / Brett Phibbs
Kim
Dotcom broke, defenseless and facing jail time
27
November, 2014
Kim
Dotcom has returned to court today to face a bail hearing
that he says could lead to him being returned to jail.
The
internet mogul said nothing to reporters as he walked into the
Auckland District Court and through security in the foyer.
The
hearing follows an appearance on Monday at which his bail conditions
were tightened to mean he is no longer allowed to use helicopters or
travel by boat, and must remain within 80 kilometres of his home in
Coatesville, north of Auckland.
COURT
DATE: Kim Dotcom arrives at court in Auckland for a bail hearing.
New Zealand gets headlines for all the wrong reasons.
A bit rich coming from the Establishment paper in the US, the Police State, the country leading the way down the road to fascism and which pulls all the strings here.
Civil
Liberties in Peril Down Under
NYT,
27
November, 2014
That
decision came after Dotcom's previous legal team, behind his
three-year-long, $10 million battle to fend off extradition to the
US, withdrew from the case.
His
new lawyer, Ron Mansfield, then succeeded in getting the bail hearing
delayed until today so he could read the files. The hearing takes
place at Auckland District Court at 10am.
In
a video speech to a group of online entrepreneurs this week, Dotcom
said the bid to extradite him had "drained my resources and
dehydrated me" and that he had no lawyers and was defenceless.
"I
am having a bail hearing where they are trying to lock me up and put
me in jail again," Dotcom said. "This might be the last
public appearance."
He
said that the United States Government had taken all his assets
gained before the 2012 raid on his Coatesville property. After he
began the Internet Party before this year's election, the Motion
Picture Association of America took civil action for his assets.
"So
I'm officially broke right now," he said.
His shares
in the web upload service Mega were held in trust by his estranged
wife and five children
Australia
and New Zealand are not among the usual suspects when it comes to
state suppression of civil liberties. But both countries, stung by
Edward J. Snowden’s revelations last year about their
intelligence-gathering efforts, have been cracking down on the press:
Australia has passed sweeping secrecy laws, while police officers in
New Zealand recently raided the home of a reporter who had published
information regarding a government scandal.
There
has been little international outcry, and Washington is hardly likely
to be upset: The two countries harbor the only major intelligence
gathering facilities for the National Security Agency in the Southern
Hemisphere, and, along with Britain, Canada and the United States,
are members of the intelligence-sharing arrangement known as the
“Five Eyes.”
In
New Zealand, the journalist targeted in the raid is the country’s
top investigative reporter, Nicky Hager, who has been working with
Mr. Snowden and the journalist Glenn Greenwald. Mr. Hager has “long
been a pain in the establishment’s neck,” a former prime minister
of New Zealand, David Lange, once said, admiringly.
In
1996 Mr. Hager published his book “Secret Power,” which revealed
the relationship between the N.S.A. and New Zealand. Mr. Lange said
that he learned more about what the N.S.A. was doing in his country
from reading Mr. Hager’s reporting than he did as prime minister.
Across
the Tasman Sea, the Australian government recently amended the
country’s national security laws so that journalists and
whistle-blowers who publish details of “special intelligence
operations” may be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison.
The
measures are part of a groundswell of terrorism hysteria. September
brought the largest counterterrorism raids in Australian history, in
which some 800 state and federal police officers raided homes in
several Sydney suburbs with large Muslim populations, acting on what
officials said was an intercepted phone call about possible activity
by allies of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS.
For
all the forces deployed in the raids, only one person was arrested
and charged with a terrorism-related crime; in a court appearance in
mid-November, his lawyer said the telephone conversation had been
mistranslated.
The
press has added to the hysteria, spreading a story that Islamic State
followers were plotting a public beheading in a square in downtown
Sydney — a claim no public official has made, and a claim for which
there is virtually no evidence.
A
week after the raids, the ruling center-right Liberal Party proposed
the national security amendments aimed at the press and leaks; the
opposition Labor Party supported them, and the changes passed with
little debate.
Tellingly,
one of the few votes against the bill came from a former intelligence
official. “This is disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful,” said
Andrew Wilkie, an independent member of Parliament from Tasmania. Mr.
Wilkie had resigned from the country’s intelligence service in
early 2003 in protest against the lack of evidence in the claims
about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Continue
reading the main storyContinue reading the main storyContinue reading
the main story
But
it seems the Australian government is motivated by more than just
terrorism fears. A year ago, based on information provided by Mr.
Snowden, The Guardian Australia newspaper and the Australian
Broadcasting Company, the public broadcaster, reported that
Australian intelligence had bugged the mobile telephones of President
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of Indonesia, his wife and eight of his top
aides.
This
was far more serious than just an embarrassment to the Australian
government. It caused a serious rupture in diplomatic relations —
Indonesia recalled its ambassador, and he didn’t return for six
months. Indonesia looms large in Australia’s foreign policy
constellation, along with the United States, and its major trading
partners China and Japan. Cooperation with Indonesia is considered
vital in the fight against human trafficking and terrorism.
In
New Zealand, the fallout from Mr. Snowden’s leaks has been
domestic. At a conference in Auckland in September, Mr. Snowden said,
via a video hookup from Moscow, that the New Zealand government and
the National Security Agency of the United States were engaged in
vast domestic surveillance.
The
country’s prime minister, John Key, vigorously denied the charges,
but then backtracked after Mr. Snowden released supporting documents,
saying that he “may well be right.” Mr. Key added, “I don’t
run the N.S.A.”
It
came as no surprise to many when, last month, five detectives and a
computer engineer raided the home of Mr. Hager, the journalist who
has been working with Mr. Snowden. Over a 10-hour period, they took
computers, phones, papers, an iPod and a camera.
The
raid may also have arisen out of Mr. Hager’s most recent book,
“Dirty Politics,” in which he revealed that officials in the
prime minister’s center-right National Party government had been
supplying derogatory information about opposition politicians to a
right-wing blogger. The justice minister was forced to resign.
Whatever
the motivation, the raid, like the Australian anti-whistle-blower
laws and President Obama’s anti-leak investigations, is certain to
have a chilling effect. Of course, such steps are always explained as
a result of a careful balancing between national security and civil
liberties. What is becoming increasingly clear is that political
self-interest — which serves no one except the powers that be —
is just as important a factor.
Raymond
Bonner is a former New York Times reporter and the author, most
recently, of “Anatomy of Injustice: A Murder Case Gone Wrong.”
terrorist fighters Bill, criticism and opposition is coming from unexpected quarters,such as the former head of the GCSB and right-wing political commentator (straight out of "the Hollow Men"), Matthew Hooten.
I particularly recommend listening to the second interview
Former GCSB director critical of new terrorist fighters law
Otago University political scientist Bryce Edwards and right-wigner, Matthew Hooten, discuss the cotnroversy surrounding Key and his Bill being rushed through Parliament.
This is the latest news.
Advice sought on PM destroying texts
The
Green Party has asked the Chief Archivist to look into whether Prime
Minister John Key is destroying public records after he revealed he
deletes all of his text messages
.
John Key
28
November, 2014
Speaking
on behalf of the Prime Minister in Parliament yesterday, senior
minister Steven Joyce said Mr Key received about 1000 texts a day and
deleted all of them in case he lost his phone.
A
Green Party spokesperson said any texts sent or received in his
capacity as Prime Minister should be kept, in the interests of
accountability under the likes of the Official Information Act.
There
would be a public outcry if Mr Key deleted all of his emails, or
burned his briefing papers, the spokesperson said.
The
party wanted the Chief Archivist to provide advice on whether the
destruction of texts is legal.
Digging a hole
Meanwhile,
Labour leader Andrew Little said Mr Key had dug himself into a big
hole over his communications with right-wing blogger Cameron Slater.
Mr
Key is adamant he has not lied or misled New Zealanders over his
dealings with Mr Slater but has faced criticism for twice saying he
had not been in contact with the blogger about the inquiry into the
Security Intelligence Service when the previous night he had, in
fact, had a text exchange with him.
Mr
Little said it was just not credible.
"I
can't understand why John Key, who's been the Prime Minister now for
his six years, knows responsibility, has been in very high-pressure
situations, why he's insisting on digging in his heels in a way that
looks like he's concealing something over all this," he said.
"This
all stems from what he did in his own office."
Mr
Little said if Mr Key admitted the extent of the contact he had had
with Mr Slater, and apologised for his handling of the whole
situation, that would satisfy him and most New Zealanders.
However,
he had a hunch Mr Key was hiding more about his contact with Mr
Slater, he said.
Andrew
Little says the text exchange released by the Prime Minister's Office
does not look complete.
Photo: RNZ
/ Diego Opatowski
Mr
Little said the text exchange between the pair released by Mr Key did
not look complete.
He
said Mr Key had not been able to give straight answers to what seemed
like a very simple issue.
"This
is not the John Key that we're used to. John Key used to be very
straight-up. He has completely gone and lost the plot on this and is
looking pretty crooked."
The text exchange
On
26 November, the Prime Minister's Office released the following
transcript of the text exchange:
Cameron
Slater: [journalist] gave it away to me ... Goff leaked SIS
report Nov 24
Prime
Minister: It's a joke isn't it. They will attack Jason for
talking to u and they break the confidentiality agreement. Classic
lab. Nov 24
CS: Yup
... I'm very angry over it ... Goff is the one who leaked oravida
stuff too. Nov 24
CS: They
still have standard bloggers on staff Nov 24
CS: And
Mccarten was involved in hack Nov 24
PM: Hopefully
it will all come out in time Nov 24
CS: I
wish they would hurry up ... they played the real dirty politics ...
even tried to kill me ... I have evidence of. Nov 24
MPs warned over new anti-terror laws
MPs
have been warned new anti-terror legislation, as it stands, would
allow spies to go on fishing expeditions for information.
The Waihopai spy base in Marlborough.
28
November, 2014
A
select committee was sitting through a second day of urgent hearings
on a bill which aimed to crack down on terrorist fighters.
The
bill would allow the Security Intelligence Service to spy on suspects
for up to 48 hours without a warrant.
Privacy
Commissioner John Edwards said if agents found nothing of interest,
they could then stop, the only consequence being they would have to
report they had done so.
"They
could have a camera in your bedroom, they could be listening to all
your telephone communications, they could be intercepting and viewing
your emails and your internet traffic and that could happen for 48
hours just on the say-so of a public servant."
He
said the SIS could spy on someone without a warrant and then stop
within 48 hours, the only consequence being it would have to report
that it had done so.
Former
director of the Government Communications Security Bureau Sir Bruce
Ferguson said he was particularly worried about giving agencies the
power to spy on people for up to 48 hours without a warrant.
"I'm
not convinced that you cannot get a warrant within 48 hours if it is
that concerning then you can actually have people who are authorised
assign warrants on standby if you are worried about the [cricket]
World Cup coming up."
He
said extreme caution was needed in giving agencies and politicians
that kind of power.
The
committee will report back to Parliament on Tuesday.
Plea from muslim community to parliamentary committtee
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL PRESS RELEASE
Government must allow further scrutiny of Countering Terrorist Fighters Bill
As
the New Zealand government seeks to rush new through new anti-terror
legislation, Amnesty International is raising grave concerns over the
speed at which the Bill is being rushed through Parliament and is
calling for an extension to the consultation period.
“Slamming
through legislation in such a short timeframe puts hard won and
fundamental human rights at risk. It is a blow to the foundations of
New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements,” said Amanda Brydon,
Advocacy Manager at Amnesty International.
“It
is dangerous to rush through such measures without proper
consultation, careful, thoughtful analysis is needed, not
fast-tracking and grandstanding.”
While
the Government has an important role in the protection of New Zealand
from threats to national security, it has a responsibility to always
uphold the very values and freedoms it is trying to defend. To do
this it must ensure that any anti-terror protection measures are
consistent with international human rights standards, something that
has not been adequately done with the current bill.
The
cancellation of passports and the increased surveillance of
individuals, including circumstances where a warrant is not required,
constitutes a fundamental interference with a range of human rights,
including the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of
movement.
These
are just two of a number of questions Amnesty International and
others have around the Bill.
Amnesty
International also questions the Government’s justification that
the legislation is being introduced to meet obligations as set out by
a United Nations Security Council resolution to address foreign
fighters.
“The
same resolution also clearly states that governments must comply with
their obligations under international law – including international
human rights law – and that failure to do so contributes to
radicalisation,” said Amanda Brydon.
“By
only allowing 48 hours for consultation by experts and others, the
Government is not allowing the opportunity for proper scrutiny and
the ability to robustly discuss whether the proposals are indeed
consistent with our obligations under international law. The
Security Council resolution should not be used to justify the haste
with which this bill is being rushed through the consultation
process.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.