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.
Probably the music industry bribed someone.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
+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.
My webcomic
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.
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.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
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).
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?
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.
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.
The problem being, a good judge will step down for something like this, but a bad judge will most likely take his/her place.