Judge In Kim Dotcom Extradition Case Steps Down

First time accepted submitter Kalriath writes "After calling the United States 'the enemy' at the NetHui conference last week (reported on Slashdot), Judge David Harvey has stepped down from the Dotcom case citing beliefs that the comments could reflect on his impartiality. From the New Zealand Herald: 'An Internet law expert, Judge Harvey had been considered the perfect choice to hear arguments on whether Dotcom and his Megaupload colleagues should be extradited by the United States to face charges of criminal copyright violation. The district court's chief judge Jan-Marie Doogue said Judge Harvey had made the decision to step down from hearing the case. "He recognizes that remarks made in the context of a paper he delivered on copyright law at a recent Internet conference could reflect on his impartiality and that the appropriate response is for him to step down from the case."'"

Comments

threatened?

[Anonymous Coward]

seems like a weak reason

Re:threatened?

[MickyTheIdiot]

no doubt... when in the U.S. we've got high level judges that have received millions of dollars from one of the parties in the case an refuse to step down it does indeed seem weak.

They may, however, just have more integrity in that system left. I doubt it, though.

Re:threatened?

[drinkydoh]

Well, he made the right decision right? I don't get why so many people on slashdot is saying it's the wrong decision. If this was judge who commented against dotcom in similar way Slashdot would be outraged if he didn't step down.

Re:threatened?

[krept]

Not quite sure why you lost mod points here. For once we read about a judge doing the ethical thing, just very unfortunate that it is our loss. We can't win huh.

Re:threatened?

[Anonymous Coward]

The other side doesn't let ethics get in the way. I think this speaks volumes as to what types of people are on which side of IP law.

Re:threatened?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actual honorable judges with an interest in justice will recuse themselves in situations like this. Biased, special-interest-beholden, evil judges with an agenda will never recuse themselves in situations like this, because these situations are exactly how they further their agenda.

Of course, those who recuse themselves are exactly the kinds of judge that should be hearing these cases, as evidenced by the fact that they are honorable and clear-minded enough to see and admit to their biases. Those who do not recuse themselves are the worst possible options, and really shouldn't even be judged, because they legislate against the people from the bench.

Re:threatened?

[oldmac31310]

But isn't it likely that he will just be replaced by a judge with less of a sense of ethics and possibly a bias in the other direction? Would that be better? Hardly.

Re:threatened?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like politicians, too, right? Anyone who wants to be President (fill in your own puppet master of choice in your own country) should never be allowed to be President. (Sorry for not giving credit)

Re:threatened?

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason for the double standard is that we all know these charges are BS and this judge indicated a bias that would lead toward a just ruling. No doubt this judge was pressured so that a copyright cartel puppet judge could be brought up in his place.

Also, the judge is entitled to have personal opinions and beliefs. If a judge is a rape victim that affects the judges ability to render a decision in a rape case and the judge should step down. If a judge believes rape is evil that doesn't mean he can't preside over a rape case.

Re:threatened?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Actual honorable judges with an interest in justice will recuse themselves in situations like this."

True but they also generally wouldn't have given an interview related to an ongoing case and made comments about one of the parties in the case.

There is nothing wrong with a judge having a bias that derives from his opinion. Judges aren't supposed to be machines they are entitled to opinions and to base decisions and rulings on them. For instance, a judge is allowed to rule for one party over another for no better reason than the judge has the opinion that one is lying. Otherwise every judge who thought penalties were too harsh or who believed in being tough on crime would have to recuse themselves from every criminal case ever. Having a bias is a far cry from having an actual conflict of interest like being on a front panel for the copyright cartels or taking money from them.

Re:threatened?

[Scragglykat]

The problem being, a good judge will step down for something like this, but a bad judge will most likely take his/her place.

Re:threatened?

[just another AC]

That is the most concise well thought out argument I have read all day.

I guess we are stuck between wanting to encourage ethical behaviour (in judges) and wanting to discourage unethical behaviour by the mafiaa and associated government puppets.

Re:threatened?

[interkin3tic]

I think I'm in the minority here, but I don't want or need people whose interests align with me to "fight the good fight." I want the representatives that I vote for (as opposed to the ones sponsored by interests opposed to mine) to just win, I want consumer interests to just win, I want proponents of things like ending software patents or increasing government transparency to just win.

When your side is playing the game fair and the other side isn't, that becomes frustrating quickly. And it's not like the integrity of the court system is endangered here by the judge staying on. We already have judges who fail to recuse themselves when they should, and most often against our interests.

Fuck ethics. The corrupt side certainly does already.

Translation:

[Anonymous Coward]

The US bribed someone to get him out of the way so they can get a more acquiescent judge who won't give a damn about what the law says and about all the laws the FBI violated in either country.

Re:Translation:

[Chrisq]

The US bribed someone to get him out of the way so they can get a more acquiescent judge who won't give a damn about what the law says and about all the laws the FBI violated in either country.

Probably the music industry bribed someone.

Re:Translation:

[blibbler]

I think you need to get a bit of fresh air. New Zealand consistently ranks at or near the top of the least corrupt countries in the world. http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/results/ While countries like the US and Iran may have court systems that regularly make decisions for political reasons, that is not the case in most of the developed world. Just because you don't like the decision, doesn't mean it is corruption.

Re:Translation:

[91degrees]

Or maybe he stepped down because he believed that given his comments, one might reasonably question his impartiality in this case.

Personally, while I agreed with him, I was amazed to read he actually said that.

Re:Translation:

[tommasorepetti]

Who did they bribe? The judge himself? If a judge in a criminal case (which this is) for any other crime calls the prosecutor "the enemy" in public speech, he or she will have to step down. To do otherwise would make a mockery of the judicial system they allegedly represent. The judiciary might have encouraged this, but only to avoid embarrassing themselves. It was his call essentially to announce public that he had already made up his mind about the case. The judge often makes this sort of decision publicly, but it tends to be called a verdict.

Re:Translation:

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably not. He seems like the kind of guy who knows the truth and does the right thing, but by doing so leaves the decisions to others, who are less honorable.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke

Re:Translation:

[T Murphy]

+5 Insightful for a conspiracy theory that doesn't even make sense? Seriously?

I guess when a judge is biased in a way we don't like (i.e. the Pirate Bay trial) he's terrible and should be removed from the case, but when he's biased in a favorable way he's the best one for the case? Also, if this judge is so awesome, why can he be bribed? If he can be bribed, why doesn't the US just have him rule in their favor, rather than make him step down so another judge can be bribed for the ruling?

The simple answer is he's as good of a judge as we hoped, but as any good judge would do, he recognizes his bias. Maybe he has enough faith in the other judges that he feels that the case would go better with someone else, as opposed to him staying on the case and giving the US a strong case for a successful appeal.

Re:Translation:

[ohnocitizen]

Exactly. If anything this judge stepping aside confirms that NZ is behind the US when it comes to our respective judicial systems. In the US it is considered customary and just for a judge with a conflict of interest to remain on the bench. If he or she is feeling especially patriotic, the judge in question may go on Fox and Friends to confirm why one side in a particular case deserves to lose "SO HARDCORE". Stepping down to avoid potential impartiality is liberal judicial activism.

Re:Translation:

[celticryan]

You do realize that you linked to a study on the perception of corruption of a given government, not an actual empirical measure of corruption. Those are two very different things. Your final statement, which I agree with, does not rest on the incorrect statement before it.

Re:Translation:

[Anonymous Coward]

YEP!

Re:Translation:

[Anonymous Coward]

That same website also ranked the US between 8 and 8.9 so clearly something is wrong there because the globalist in the US government are clearly corrupt.

Re:Translation:

[dunkelfalke]

Or maybe the judge just didn't like the case much - maybe because Kim Schmitz is a crook but has to be acquitted anyway - so the judge used this loophole intentionally to remove himself from the case.

Re:Translation:

[sed quid in infernos]

You site the CPI, so I assume you think it's 9.5 rating of New Zealand is probative of something. Yet, in the same post, you place Iran (CPI of 2.7) and the U.S. (CPI of 7.1) in the same category of corruption. In fact, the U.S. is within a point of much of the developed world" (all but 13 countries).

Re:Translation:

[caitsith01]

The US bribed someone to get him out of the way so they can get a more acquiescent judge who won't give a damn about what the law says and about all the laws the FBI violated in either country.

I know it's not something you're used to, assuming you're a US citizen, but it's actually just that NZ is a country where the rule of law operates, and this is an example of the system properly and impartially dealing with the issue. Judges in NZ (and Australia... and Britain) aren't elected and, by US standards, are not beholden to party politics. Furthermore, except in exceptional circumstances, no bureaucrat has the power to prevent a judge from hearing a matter.

Had he not recused himself, there would have been a risk of a successful appeal on the basis of bias.

Of course if the same judge had made a speech talking about how the US is New Zealand's best friend when it comes to intellectual property issues, you'd be squealing about his bias.

Re:Translation:

[JosKarith]

The US threatened someone to get him out of the way so they can get a more acquiescent judge who won't give a damn about what the law says and about all the laws the FBI violated in either country.
TFTFY...

Re:Translation:

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a fundamental difference.

Judges biased in a way we don't like (your Pirate Bay trial is a very good example) don't step down.

Judges biased in a way we do like recognise they might be biased (or be perceived as biased) and step down.

IMHO, in the first case there might be some financial (or other personal) motivation; in the second case, I think it's integrity.

Re:Translation:

[Anonymous Coward]

When's the last time a MafiAA shill judge recused?

They don't. Which means every time a GOOD judge recuses from a case the people get fucked.

Re:Translation:

[L4t3r4lu5]

The US bribed someone to get him out of the way so they can get a more acquiescent judge who won't give a damn about what the law says and about all the laws the FBI violated in either country.

Hyperbole and speculation much?

The Judge said something moronic in public, which he knew could jeopardise the case for Kim Dotcom, and stepped aside. Nobody was bought, nobody had the thumb screws applied, a smart man did a stupid thing and is minimising the damage.

Your tinfoil hat is stopping all of the sensible thoughts getting out. Take it off once in a while.

Re:Translation:

[Anonymous Coward]

What the judge does is irrelevant. The point was the reaction.

Re:Translation:

[CrimsonAvenger]

Judges in NZ (and Australia... and Britain) aren't elected and, by US standards, are not beholden to party politics. Furthermore, except in exceptional circumstances, no bureaucrat has the power to prevent a judge from hearing a matter.

This is generally true in the USA for Federal Judges as well.

Except for the last sentence. In the USA, there are no "exceptional circumstances" that permit a bureaucrat to prevent a judge from hearing a matter.

Had he not recused himself, there would have been a risk of a successful appeal on the basis of bias.

Same here. If he'd not recused himself over here, the lawyers would have been preparing the appeal paperwork in parallel with the trial briefs, since they'd know in advance what the grounds for appeal were going to be....

And they'd win their appeal, too....

Re:Translation:

[Tom]

The US bribed someone to get him out of the way so they can get a more acquiescent judge who won't give a damn about what the law says and about all the laws the FBI violated in either country.

[supporting evidence needed]

Really. Or maybe aliens abducted him and this is a cover story so what they did to his nose does not make national headlines because it would unravel the inner earth conspiracy that the aliens are protecting in their alliance with the secret nazi government that is pulling the strings of the UN.

Oh dear, I fear this will show up on Google and some poor idiot actually believes it.

Re:Translation:

[Xest]

So does Sweden, but when a judge which was part of a music industry lobby group presided over The Pirate Bay trial it was whitewashed as no conflict of interest.

Whilst I agree that thereotically this is the correct outcome in this case, it does irk me somewhat that this sort of thing only turns out the way vested interests would like it to turn out, rather than necessarily how it should turn out if things were done right.

I'm not sure if New Zealand being at the top of the transparency index given the whole MegaUpload debacle tells me that the transparency index is full of crap, or simply that the standard of transparency required to be the most transparent country in the world is a pretty depressingly low bar to reach.

I think it's naive to beleive that simply because New Zealand, Sweden et al. are towards the top of this arbitrary index that there is no corruption involved.

The fact that my own country, the UK is perceived as pretty "clean" is a little worrying given that politicians have been lying to our faces, and we know they've been lying to our faces for sometime says a lot. Between the last government with David Miliband standing up in front of the cameras telling us the UK had nothing to do with torture when we know fucking well it did, a fact which is now proven, and Jeremy Hunt under this government telling us he was innocent of wrong doing when we all know fucking well he wasn't because the evidence is sat there right in front of us proving otherwise I don't know how we can even come close to scoring a 7.8. Christ, the Tory treasurer was filmed saying it would only cost £250,000 to basically dictate to government what you wanted policy on certain issues to be.

Re:Translation:

[qbast]

Judges in NZ (and Australia... and Britain) aren't elected and, by US standards, are not beholden to party politics. Furthermore, except in exceptional circumstances, no bureaucrat has the power to prevent a judge from hearing a matter.

This is generally true in the USA for Federal Judges as well.

Except for the last sentence. In the USA, there are no "exceptional circumstances" that permit a bureaucrat to prevent a judge from hearing a matter.

Said bureaucrat just needs to invoke "state secrets privilege" and case is instantly dismissed.

Re:Translation:

[Anonymous Coward]

He who has the gold makes the rules. Please go back and relearn this valuable lesson, citizen.

Re:Translation:

[Anonymous Coward]

http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/in_detail/#myAnchor4

  4. Why is the CPI based only on perceptions?

Corruption generally comprises illegal activities, which mainly come to light only through scandals, investigations or prosecutions. It is thus difficult to assess absolute levels of corruption in countries or territories on the basis of hard empirical data. Possible attempts to do so such as by comparing bribes reported, the number of prosecutions brought or court cases directly linked to corruption cannot be taken as definitive indicators of corruption levels. Rather they show how effective prosecutors, the courts or the media are in investigating and exposing corruption. One reliable method of compiling comparable country data is to capture perceptions of those in a position to offer assessments of public sector corruption in a given country.

Re:Translation:

[misexistentialist]

Personal or financial interests make one partial. Being influenced by the facts and coming to a conclusion is just being a judge.

Re:Translation:

[misexistentialist]

But the judges biased the other way usually have financial ties to the copyright industry! Unless this guy worked for a file-sharing site there is no parallel.

Re:Translation:

[91degrees]

The point is that there's an argument that he's not impartial. He very likely is, but it would waste everyone's time if someone wanted to make the argument, and any other judge is likely to come to much the same decision as he is, assuming he is impartial.

Re:Translation:

[Anonymous Coward]

But what are the chances that other judges will have hear what he said, if only by proxy? Could be a very smart judge.

Re:Translation:

[Anonymous Coward]

And your evidence for that ranting accusation is...?

Re:Translation:

[Hentes]

He didn't, he quoted someone else and then the whole thing got published without context and blown out of proportion.

Re:Translation:

[Hentes]

Judges are not Wikipedia to be completely neutral, in fact their job is exactly to decide between two parties. When a judge has personal or financial ties to one of the participants (like in the Pirate Bay trial), that's a valid reason to demand him to step down. Simply having an opinion isn't.

Re:Translation:

[DesScorp]

The US bribed someone to get him out of the way so they can get a more acquiescent judge who won't give a damn about what the law says and about all the laws the FBI violated in either country.

He left of his own accord. That means if anyone was bribed, it was the Judge himself, and that would make him corrupt in any case.

Or... you can come out of your tinfoil-lined basement, drop the conspiracy theories, and take the man at his word, that he left of his own accord because he did something stupid and is taking the proper action. But this is Slashdot, so I'm not holding my breath.

Re:Translation:

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess when a judge is biased in a way we don't like (i.e. the Pirate Bay trial)"

Everyone is biased, there is nothing wrong with that. Being part of the lobby group for one of the parties in a case isn't a bias its a conflict of interest.

There is nothing wrong with a judge having an opinion.

Re:Translation:

[Anonymous Coward]

"Of course if the same judge had made a speech talking about how the US is New Zealand's best friend when it comes to intellectual property issues, you'd be squealing about his bias."

There is nothing wrong with a double standard here. One is a bias toward taking what will be just action and the other is a biased toward supporting the copyright cartels.

Re:Translation:

[westlake]

The US bribed someone to get him out of the way so they can get a more acquiescent judge who won't give a damn about what the law says

The geek's instinctive --- and utterly lame ---- excuse for everything that goes wrong for him in law and politics is bribery. It is lazy and, worse, it is stupid. But always worth a quick mod up to +5.

I remember the U.S. jigsaw puzzle maps I played with as a kid.

Each state puzzle piece decorated with colorful icons representing their economic base, population, geographical features, travel and tourism, principal cities, historical events and so on.

You could see political alignments and policy decisions falling neatly into place.

There was more political maturity and good sense in these grade school geographic puzzles then anything I have seen here.

Re:Translation:

[caitsith01]

Except for the last sentence. In the USA, there are no "exceptional circumstances" that permit a bureaucrat to prevent a judge from hearing a matter.

So if a judge went insane or committed some act of moral turpitude, there would be no power to remove him/her or prevent him/her from hearing a case?

That is the type of situation I'm talking about.

In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, he's not the right guy, because he's not sympathetic enough to the US cause, and so he ewas given a choice he couldn't refuse.

Re:In other words

[TemplePilot]

i.e.: kickbacks OR a tombstone?

Re:In other words

[VGPowerlord]

i.e.: kickbacks OR a tombstone?

More like
"What do you want on your Tombstone? 'Here lies David Harvey' or 'Pepperoni and Cheese'?"

Re:In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, he's not the right guy, because he's not sympathetic enough to the US cause

I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but if YOUR judge called you "the enemy" during the lawsuit, you may want him to step down. Judges are supposed to remain impartial, and the honest ones follow ethic rules.

Re:In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but people will always have bias no matter what you do. If they worked for one of the parties, *that* would be a reason to step down. But having an opinion... judges will always have opinions.

There was no reason to step down simply because he found that the US were the bad guys here.

And in his place....

[Anonymous Coward]

How much do you want to bet a judge who just "happens" to have a history of going harder on extradition cases, and just "happens" to have little to no experience, professionally or personally, using any technology developed after 1985?

The perfect guy

[Anonymous Coward]

His gesture of stepping down marks him exactly as the perfect one to judge the case as he is showing his ability to be self conscious of his own bias and manage it properly

Re:The perfect guy

[Hatta]

Except that he's not biased. His statement that the US is the enemy when it comes to copyright law is completely accurate. Anyone who thinks the US isn't the enemy is biased in favor of the US and the copyright maximalists who run it.

Re:The perfect guy

[TheDarkMaster]

Good point.

Re:The perfect guy

[L4t3r4lu5]

He absolutely is, which is why he should have shut the fuck up about her personal opinions.

To the folk saying someone was "bought" to get this guy out; Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.

Re:The perfect guy

[Anonymous Coward]

The perfect copyright law is a matter of opinion. You and I happen to share the same opinion, but that doesn't make it any less subjective. If you hold an opinion so strongly that you refer to people who don't share your opinion as "the enemy," then that's a strong indicator of bias: an unwillingness (or even inability) to fairly consider contrary opinions. Fairly considering contrary opinions is a prerequisite for being a judge.

I suspect that when he described the US as "the enemy" he was just engaging in a bit of harmless rhetoric. He probably could have been as impartial as anyone else. As the parent said, he probably could have done better than most others. But, unfortunately, we can't measure impartiality objectively, so we tend to err on the side of caution and strive to avoid even the appearance of bias.

Re:The perfect guy

[jythie]

Which, by US standards is bias... 'if you are not unquestioningly for us, you are bias!'... which I suspect they 'communicated' to either the judge or people above him, who then quietly took him aside and explained what staying on the case might do to his career....

Re:The perfect guy

[tommasorepetti]

If by "enemy" you mean that the U.S. entertainment industry produces the vast majority of all the content that Kim Dotcom pilfered for his own pecuniary gain, then yes, the U.S. is the enemy when it comes to copyright laws. Most movies are not released under a GPL-style, if you would like some that are, I can direct you to an awesome CGI movie about a bunny. Alternatively, I could suggest that those who take issue with current media distribution methods try to create something worthwhile themselves to share under such a license, or that they propose an alternative distribution method that respects the rights of those who generate content. Free as in free software and free media are about the rights of the end user... they are not about "free"-loaders.

Re:The perfect guy

[Kokuyo]

That is a nice saying but in the real world, when it comes to rotten situations it might just as well be that it's either stupidity or malice, neither or even both.

Never discount any possibility without ample reason.

Re:The perfect guy

[Anonymous Coward]

His gesture of stepping down marks him exactly as the perfect one to judge the case as he is showing his ability to be self conscious of his own bias and manage it properly

Uh, no, he demonstrated that he's impartial and interested in one party and the whole point of recusal (and, really, the reason for a legal system) is that you can't "manage" your bias.

And, really, he's only recusing because he ran his mouth and got called out on it. He was perfectly happy to try the case before.

Re:The perfect guy

[Hatta]

Fairly considering contrary opinions is a prerequisite for being a judge.

Yes, and when the contrary opinion has been fairly considered and found to be harmful, one can say so without impugning their impartiality. You have the same wishy-washy notion of impartiality that has infected journalism. Sometimes one side is right, and it's not wrong to say so.

If you want competence from your judges you have to understand that they bring experience to the table. That experience is valuable. Anyone who hasn't concluded that the US is the enemy of good copyright policy is frankly too ignorant to conduct a fair trial.

Re:The perfect guy

[bsdewhurst]

That and the fact that he wrote his thesis on the Statute of Anne

Re:The perfect guy

[BryanL]

Everyone has a bias. The problem is, his bias against the US in terms of copyright is part of the public record. If it wasn't part of the public record I am sure he would still be on the case. Since his bias is public, it could be used to overturn the case (or at least call it into question).

Re:The perfect guy

[tnk1]

Judges know that they can't have even the appearance of bias. He made a professional mistake and he's not taking the case due to it. The continued use of the courts is the perception, no matter how flawed, that the court will rule based on the law and not make its own laws up because it doesn't like them. Even when it is ruling a law unconstitutional, it is merely a statement that the overturned law is not valid against the "higher" law.

Judges don't get to "fairly consider" opinions. That is the job of the legislature. If the law required the defendant to sacrifice kittens to Baal or be locked up, as a judge I'd have to consider that offense as if I didn't think it was a horrible law. My choices would be to either step down from the bench or hear the case and sentence him to jail if he was guilty of not killing kittens. Any other option is me not doing my job as a judge.

Re:The perfect guy

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a nice saying but in the real world, when it comes to rotten situations it might just as well be that it's either stupidity or malice, neither or even both.

Never discount any possibility without ample reason.

While you are correct, the cliche` implies the part about "All things being equal" and is based on the same premise as that of Occam's Razor. All things being equal, the most probable explanation is stupidity.

Re:The perfect guy

[tnk1]

And what, the music industry paid him to make those comments? If a judge in the US made comments like that, he or she would be called on to step down as well. There's no other need to bribe or buy anyone off, he did all their work for them. There's no need to pay an assassin to kill you if you jump off a building all by yourself.
The fact that it is very a convenient development for you doesn't mean you did it.

Re:The perfect guy

[Tom]

Yes, but catch-22 - by recusing, he demonstrated his integrity and should stay, but if he stays, then he lacks the show of integrity.

No, by recusing himself, he has demonstrated that he will be the perfect one to judge other cases of similar nature. This one should be judged by someone who has not made a public statement that could be interpreted as having a personal interest in the outcome.

Re:The perfect guy

[Tom]

He absolutely is, which is why he should have shut the fuck up about her personal opinions.

You can't seriously ask experts on a topic to shut up about it, it would be a loss for all of us.

In the greater picture, the interview might be many times more influential and important than the one case that will now be judged by someone else.

Re:The perfect guy

[misexistentialist]

Judges often have harsh words against murderers and child rapists entered into the record too . Are they too biased to hear those types of cases?

Re:The perfect guy

[Hatta]

Judges know that they can't have even the appearance of bias.

This judge does not appear to be biased based on his statements. Any impartial observer would make the same statements.

Re:The perfect guy

[steelfood]

First you look for stupidity. In the absence of that, then you look for malice. The whole point is not to start off looking for malice, because that's much rarer than stupidity. You'd end up expending all of your energy constantly planning for a rarity.

Re:The perfect guy

[Hatta]

It's not bias if it's accurate. Suppose I'm a judge, and in the course of my private life I make a statement that "water is wet". If later on I get a case where someone is claiming as a central point to their argument that water is not wet.

Should I then recuse myself from that case? Would justice be better served by a judge who was not already aware that water is in fact wet?

Re:The perfect guy

[quantaman]

Anyone who hasn't concluded that the US is the enemy of good copyright policy is frankly too ignorant to conduct a fair trial.

The problem isn't that he concluded the US is the enemy of good copyright policy, the problem is that he cares enough about this issue to express/argue this conclusion, and it might be hard to separate his opinions on US copyright law from the issue he's supposed to be deliberating on.

That being said there's not a lot on the original context so it's hard to say if there is a reasonable concern about bias or if he's just being overly cautious.

Judge Harvey

[Anonymous Coward]

You embody the spirit of legal process. Kudos.

Re:Judge Harvey

[ciderbrew]

Yes, it has been good reading this story. Maybe there should be more news about good Judges.

Re:Judge Harvey

[Anonymous Coward]

I still like the idea of a Judge having (and voicing) an opinion. If it's presented as a well-reasoned statement that takes the Law into consideration, so much the better. I would suspect any judge capable of recognising his own bias in this case and following through on the decision to step down, I think he might be sincere enough to remove his own opinion/bias and take into consideration the arguments and facts from both sides of the issue, what the Law says on the matter and make a decision based on that. ...Oh, what a nice place to live that would be.

Re:Judge Harvey

[Anonymous Coward]

No, this is a judge being lawful stupid.

It is impossible not to have an opinion on a fairly basic issue of our time unless you are a time traveling caveman. Judges should excuse themselves when outside circumstances unduly influence their opinion, not because they have an opinion at all. Else the ideal judge would be someone who has no thoughts about anything.

When truth is out of style...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I think he has done the right thing, Judges should not have personal opinions about a running court case outside OR inside of the courtroom. Even if those opinions may hold true. Impartiality is important when passing judgement, and that judgement should be based on what is presented, not personal opinion.

Re:When truth is out of style...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I think he has done the right thing, Judges should not have personal opinions about a running court case outside OR inside of the courtroom. Even if those opinions may hold true. Impartiality is important when passing judgement, and that judgement should be based on what is presented, not personal opinion.

That's a ridiculous notion. You don't think any judges have personal opinions on abortion? Gun control? Affirmative action? Tax-funded healthcare?
You don't think any judges smoke weed? Break the speed limit? Download unpurchased mp3s? Borrow CDs and rip the music to their iTunes library?

The level of impartiality you're demanding is completely impossible within human nature.

And the difference is?

[SmallFurryCreature]

And the difference between the two is?

The surprising thing about US politicians is not that they can be bought, but how cheaply this can be done. The movies have suitcases full, the average senator goes for a few thousand.

Re:And the difference is?

[jythie]

Yeah, but they only offer those discounts to lobbies they know are already powerful. Go in there with a few kilobucks as a nobody and their prices skyrocket.

Re:And the difference is?

[pjabardo]

There are lots of non competing interests. They can sell out 1000 times. 10 thousand X 1000 = 10 million.

Re:And the difference is?

[Chrisq]

There are lots of non competing interests. They can sell out 1000 times. 10 thousand X 1000 = 10 million.

I remember reading about a British MP who took money to promote a local business. One of his pleas for mitigation was that part of his job was to promote local businesses, and would have done so if simply asked to anyway!

Re:And the difference is?

[Tom]

Parent is correct, unfortunately.

Bribery scandals in the western world regularily astonish people in the 3rd world - not for the fact that the west is corrupt, too, but because you can buy a senator or other high-ranking officials for sums that anyone of any importance in, say, Africa, would laugh about.

Re:And the difference is?

[jpapon]

I'll agree that politicians are corrupt, but I don't believe for a second that you can bribe a US senator for "a few thousand".

Senators are, generally speaking, fairly wealthy. There's no way they're going to risk their careers for a few thousand dollars.

Now, if you make a nice donation to their campaign fund, they might listen to you for a few minutes... but even then, a few thousand won't get you far. Look at the prices of a plate at one of their fundraiser dinners. Also, campaign contributions aren't classified as bribes. They basically are, but the way the laws are currently, there's nothing wrong with them.

Re:And the difference is?

[Hatta]

There's no way they're going to risk their careers for a few thousand dollars.

No worries, they don't have to risk their carreers to accept bribes.

Also, campaign contributions aren't classified as bribes.

Campaign contributions are absolutely bribes. There should be no ambiguity about this.

They basically are, but the way the laws are currently, there's nothing wrong with them.

All this means is that bribery is legal in the US, not that there is nothing wrong bribery or US law.

Re:And the difference is?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing illegal with them. That's very distinct from there being nothing wrong.

Re:And the difference is?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because democracy drives prices on government downward. When there's only one guy who can be bought, he can charge a lot. When there are 100 guys who can be bought, there's always someone willing to be bought for cheaper.

Re:And the difference is?

[Anonymous Coward]

They basically are, but the way the laws are currently, there's nothing wrong with them.

Except for the Citizens' United ruling. That was very, very wrong, and is having an immediate effect on the political process in this coming election cycle, and will continue to have vast effects on the political process for a very long time.

it's just great that the US sold itself to corporate interests with CU; it basically makes every US law up for sale to the highest bidder. The larger problem is when US-backed laws (paid for by corporations) are then forced on the rest of the world in the interest in "leveling the playing field". We are becoming a world run by the corporate rich, of the corporate rich, for the corporate rich.

So get your popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the show. while you still have the legal right to do so without paying anybody for the privilege.

What quoting a cartoon will get you.

[mbone]

The judge was of course riffing on "We have met the enemy, and he is us." (Pogo, 1970).

It was a fairly good joke, for judge, but I guess more humor than the NZ judicial system could bear.

Re:What quoting a cartoon will get you.

[Rakshasa-sensei]

Worse... He quoted a twitter message where the joke about 'us' being the 'US' was made, in the context of copyright.

Re:What quoting a cartoon will get you.

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean more humor than the USA allows the NZ judicial system to have right?

Re:What quoting a cartoon will get you.

[Drishmung]

Yes. In fact, he referred to the Pogo cartoon explicitly, earlier, and then made the pun later.

This article by Chris Keall of the NZ National Business Review gives a very good summary of the context of the remarks, including a link to the video of him making the Pogo reference and a podcast of the subsequent comment that caused the trouble.

Judge Harvey is an interesting person. Here is the page on his web-site where he describes his love of The Lord Of The Rings, and how he won the International Mastermind quiz in 1981 with LOTR as the topic.

You dont need tinfoil hats

[Anonymous Coward]

This one is pretty alarmingly obvious. The big heavy boot of the fucked up americunt political system has leveraged its massive weight once again.

Two Minutes Hate

[DNS-and-BIND]

Everybody, let's do the daily Two Minutes Hate against Emmanuel Goldstein...I mean America. We should whip ourselves into a frenzy of hatred and loathing for the enemy. Everyone spend moderation points on the most outrageous expressions of fear (which is pretty much the same as hate). By directing our hate towards an external enemy, we feel better and satisfy our feelings of angst from leading such meaningless existences.

It's always 11am somewhere. I'll start us off: B-B!...B-B!...B-B!...B-B!

Impartial, or knowledgeable ?

[Jesrad]

remarks made in the context of a paper he delivered on copyright law at a recent Internet conference could reflect on his impartiality

Does that really make him impartial, or does that show he is knowledgeable enough about the subject at hand to properly motivate any decision of his ? A clueless judge would only be a better option only for the prosecution alone. Having an informed opinion about copyright law and its potential international abuses is a sign of someone who knows what is going on and what matters.

Re:Impartial, or knowledgeable ?

[Tom]

Yes, except when someone whom you spoke out against is party - directly or indirectly - to a court case you are presiding over.

Recusing himself was absolutely the right thing to do, and a good show of integrity.

The case, not the bench

[Triv]

The judge recused himself. He didn't step down. It might be a difference in international terminology, but I saw the headline and assumed the judge had left his position as a judge.

Ethics

[Picass0]

Judge Harvey's ethical breach was in commenting on subject matter closely related to a pending case. How did he think giving an interview was even remotely proper?

Re:Ethics

[rtfa-troll]

Let me ask you a question. Do you think that judges who declare that copyright is a good idea should be recused? To be honest, I do. Whilst I believe that some limited copyright might be a social good, I think that current copyright laws are unconstitutional, against human rights laws and an interference with freedom of speech. Juges who support those laws cannot fairly judge the constitutional issues. There is no chance that a judge who said that "we must find better ways to defend Intellectual Property" would then recuse himself from a filesharing case, even if he was currently involved in it. As long as that's true, Judge Harvey's comments, whilst mildly inappropriate in the situation, are nowhere close to the boundary to justify recusal. Judges who have, in previous work, been working for or cooperating with copyright bodies regularly fail to recuse themselves. If doubles standards like this are allowed to apply where is the chance that people who have been attacked by media interests can get a fair trial?

Re:Ethics

[nospam007]

"Let me ask you a question. Do you think that judges who declare that copyright is a good idea should be recused?"

No, only those who ever sang 'Happy Birthday" in a restaurant, showed a DVD to the neighbors' kids during a party, made a mixed CD for their girlfriend or photocopied some law articles without the authorization of the author.

Re:Ethics

[Anonymous Coward]

Might be worth considering the possibility that if he was getting "back-channel" pressure to recuse himself, the "inappropriate" comment might have been intended to provide him with a plausible excuse.

Re:Ethics

[Anonymous Coward]

Judges are entitled to personal opinions. A judge can think copyright is evil or copyright is good and still judge copyright cases. A judge is a thinking human being and supposed to exercise his personal judgement when ruling.

A judge who was paid money by the copyright cartel or by the pirate bay should step aside. That isn't an opinion, its a tangible conflict of interest. And giving an interview closely related to an ongoing case is inappropriate regardless of the comments. It was incredibly stupid.

It's a shame. This judge probably would have seen justice done. Now they will put in a copyright cartel puppet instead.

Partial? That can't be a problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean the judge in the case against the TBP guys had been a board member of an organisation that advocate stricter copyright laws and that wasn't a problem...

A man of conviction

[colin_faber]

This is truly an interesting twist and something we rarely see with such high profile cases here in the US. If we had such men (or women) justices here, likely our country would be a very different (and better) place. I admire anyone with this level of mental clarity and conviction to do the right thing.

Simply have to agree with that on balance.

[Anonymous Coward]

The judge will not be a complete idiot, presumably.
He must have known when he made the comment that he would then have to leave the case.
I can only speculate that he refused to be bought as a Judge, since the penalty for him would be high.
But being bought to leave the case which would also be difficult to prove , probably carries the risk of a grand slap from the Judicial standards body or whoever.

Alternatively, he is a complete idiot..... oh well.. another brandy over here my good man.

Enemy is a very strong word to throw around

[jmorris42]

I would like to think that is why it happened. Either he realized it on his own or some other fellow judges took him aside and 'explained' it to him. You can't throw out words like 'enemy' and still pretend to be impartial.

For example, at present I can only think of a couple of opponents that would rise to the level of 'enemy' for the US. New Zealand most certainly does not. And anyone there who sees the US as an enemy isn't just wrong, they are insane.

At present our enemy list has approximatly two entries:

1. Al Qaeda & the taliban. They are in an active war against us here, in Afganistan and elsewhere. An enemy.

2. North Korea. Since a formal end of the Korean War has yet to be concluded we are all (remember that it was basically the UN vs North Korea) formally 'at war' with the Norks so they qualify as an enemy.

Other than those we have many countries/entities we are in disputes with, some might advance to enemy/war but they might not. Iran comes to mind. China is a rival but we all pray things never deteriorate to the point where words like 'enemy' make sense because that is a future we don't want to see. Russia is one to watch and worry about our relationship with, but since the fall of the Soviet Union we don't have an enemy in that part of the world.

Re:Enemy is a very strong word to throw around

[oldmac31310]

I thought it was Eastasia and Eurasia we were always at war with.

Re:Enemy is a very strong word to throw around

[Opyros]

It's a strong word if you use it literally. But he wasn't doing so; he was riffing on a famous Pogo quote, and I imagine that was the only reason he used the word "enemy" at all.

Re:Enemy is a very strong word to throw around

[Hatta]

For example, at present I can only think of a couple of opponents that would rise to the level of 'enemy' for the US.

I can think of about 306 million enemies of the current US regime.

Re:Enemy is a very strong word to throw around

[ColaMan]

For example, at present I can only think of a couple of opponents that would rise to the level of 'enemy' for the US.

Hey there. Try and look at this from a non-US perspective.

This isn't about who the US thinks is an enemy and what your definition of an enemy to them is. It's quite possible for someone to consider the US as an 'enemy' and for the US to consider them as 'just a trifling inconvenience'.

They can have any opinion they want

[Picass0]

They're human and they have a right to free speech and expression - outside the court. The problem here is discussion of issues relating to a case that will be heard in Judge Harvey's courtroom. These aren't comments he made years ago and just now he's being reminded. Harvey saw he was having his fifteen minutes and couldn't keep his mouth shut. He either had to recuse himself or he laid the groundwork for an eventual appeals process.

Is is just me?

[camperdave]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think of this when they hear the name Kim Dotcom?

Re:Is is just me?

[FilmedInNoir]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think of this when they hear the name Kim Dotcom?

Yes, only more naked and tied up. .... Yes there is, Shego is the Domme, and no I'm not posting the url.

Yeah, I could see where having significant insight

[spads]

...into a matter could hamper your "impartiality".

Not a matter of partiality

[Anonymous Coward]

Should judges that believe murder is wrong be disallowed from presiding over murder cases?

I think it's more likely that this guy received some sort of threat from some US Gov't agency, like the RIAA.

(note to those whose sarcasm detector is broken: I know the RIAA technically isn't a gov't agency, although it effects law like it is (yes, that's "effects" with an "e"). Also yes I realize this is blind speculation without basis.)

Re:Not a matter of partiality

[tomhath]

Should judges that believe murder is wrong be disallowed from presiding over murder cases?

A better example would be if a black person murdered a white and the judge publicly stated that he thinks blacks are the enemy.

I hate murder, rape.... theft... child abuse...

[bussdriver]

So I can never become a judge now because I can not be impartial on most cases.

Anybody who looks into the copyright or patent disasters we have today is going to see it any different... unless they are educated on the topic by the RIAA (the politicians still seem to know nothing, they are not learning anything except who pays more.)

Re:I hate murder, rape.... theft... child abuse...

[BitZtream]

So I can never become a judge now because I can not be impartial on most cases.

Correct. Nor can you be in a jury either. You'd be thrown off fairly quickly as the lawyers on BOTH sides don't want you in the jury to fuck it up.

I'm fairly certain you have no idea how our legal system works nor how it is supposed to work.

The fact that you're such a dick that you're flat out saying you're unwilling to even try to be impartial shows you lack the maturity for the position as well. You simply don't understand the world well enough to be qualified for the position in general, yet like most you think that makes you even more qualified. You're just an arrogant douche who thinks your way is the only way. You're wrong, and fortunately ever legal system on the planet has pretty much been setup to throw your type out of the equation as quickly as possible.

What's in a name?

[Anonymous Coward]

NetHui conference... Wonder where they get such names, obviously without consulting Russian-English dicktionaries.

Re:What's in a name?

[Kalriath]

Well that's obvious. Net, as in Internet, and Hui, as in a Maori meeting of sorts. Since we're in NZ, it's actually a perfectly appropriate name for a conference about the internet.

Where is wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

A State Department memo threatening to pull funds from NZ if judge doesn't volunteer to recuse himself would be nice. Where are those leaks when you need them?

Re:Where is wikileaks

[Kalriath]

What funds?

Could reflect on his impartiality?

[BitZtream]

WHAT impartiality, the statements make it clear that he isn't impartial and has already decided who is wrong.

He stepped down because its pretty freaking obvious he is exactly the WRONG person for the job.

Any judge thinking paedophilia a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would that mean that since NO judge doesn't think this should mean that no judge can judge a KP case and therefore cannot be tried at all.

I guess that a judge IS allowed to be non-neutral on a case they see. As long as you agree with the nature of that bias, hmm?