3 ms·

Reminds me of that Huawei lady who was pulled of her private jet in Canada because the US had a warrant on her.

morelisp 5y ago
Wanzhou was not "pulled off her private jet"; she was detained after Canadian customs processing for something that was a crime in both the US and Canada.
- FpUser 5y ago
  Gary Botting, Canada's leading expert on extraditions disagrees with that "crime in Canada" part. Reading "Legal Commentary" section of Wikipedia's article about Wanzhou leaves the impression that Canada had decided to play poodle for whatever reasons. Trump's comment about the case and the way the US had acted in similar matter with Ericsson also leaves impression that the case is largely of political nature.
  - morelisp 5y ago
    I mostly agree with you; I just don't agree it can be characterized as "pulled off her private jet" nor that the case has anything in common with diverting a commercial passenger jet via a fake bomb threat to arrest a journalist.
    - FpUser 5y ago
      I did not characterize it as her being "pulled off her private jet" and never said it has any relation to a fake bomb threat. I was replying strictly to someone's point about why she was arrested at all.
      - morelisp 5y ago
        Well if you're just going to ignore any context in statements, so will I. (Besides that: Fraud is a crime in both Canada and the US; the arguments presented in the Wikipedia article amount to "it's weird to extradite a specific person for this level of fraud", not that it's legal to commit fraud in Canada. I also agree with this!)
        FpUser 5y ago
        I suggest you read the whole thing carefully. "Allegation of misrepresentation" section in particular. It appears that no fraud had been committed. "The new court filings contend that since HSBC was made aware that Huawei and Skycom were operating in Iran...". The slides proving that were however removed from the US submission to Canada. Further to that: "In October 2020, a judge blocked an attempt by Canada's attorney general to dismiss parts of the extradition case,[121] allowing arguments for the misrepresentation of Meng's case to move forward.[122]" So it appears that earlier ruling in regards to fraud does not hold much water.

Wanzhou was not "pulled off her private jet"; she was detained after Canadian customs processing for something that was a crime in both the US and Canada.

FpUser 5y ago
Gary Botting, Canada's leading expert on extraditions disagrees with that "crime in Canada" part. Reading "Legal Commentary" section of Wikipedia's article about Wanzhou leaves the impression that Canada had decided to play poodle for whatever reasons. Trump's comment about the case and the way the US had acted in similar matter with Ericsson also leaves impression that the case is largely of political nature.
- morelisp 5y ago
  I mostly agree with you; I just don't agree it can be characterized as "pulled off her private jet" nor that the case has anything in common with diverting a commercial passenger jet via a fake bomb threat to arrest a journalist.
  - FpUser 5y ago
    I did not characterize it as her being "pulled off her private jet" and never said it has any relation to a fake bomb threat. I was replying strictly to someone's point about why she was arrested at all.
    - morelisp 5y ago
      Well if you're just going to ignore any context in statements, so will I. (Besides that: Fraud is a crime in both Canada and the US; the arguments presented in the Wikipedia article amount to "it's weird to extradite a specific person for this level of fraud", not that it's legal to commit fraud in Canada. I also agree with this!)
      - FpUser 5y ago
        I suggest you read the whole thing carefully. "Allegation of misrepresentation" section in particular. It appears that no fraud had been committed. "The new court filings contend that since HSBC was made aware that Huawei and Skycom were operating in Iran...". The slides proving that were however removed from the US submission to Canada. Further to that: "In October 2020, a judge blocked an attempt by Canada's attorney general to dismiss parts of the extradition case,[121] allowing arguments for the misrepresentation of Meng's case to move forward.[122]" So it appears that earlier ruling in regards to fraud does not hold much water.