Slashdot Mirror
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."'"
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Yes, it has been good reading this story. Maybe there should be more news about good Judges.
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.
It's always 11am somewhere. I'll start us off: B-B!...B-B!...B-B!...B-B!
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
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.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
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.
i.e.: kickbacks OR a tombstone?
More like
"What do you want on your Tombstone? 'Here lies David Harvey' or 'Pepperoni and Cheese'?"
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
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.
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.
None of us know everything. Therefore we're all naïve.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Democrat delenda est
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.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
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 it just me, or does anyone else think of this when they hear the name Kim Dotcom?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
...into a matter could hamper your "impartiality".
Bukowski said it. I believe it. That settles it.
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.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
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.
The problem being, a good judge will step down for something like this, but a bad judge will most likely take his/her place.
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.
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.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
What funds?
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
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.