4 ms·

Well, actually he has precedent in his favour. CFTC v. Walsh: District Court Releases Funds Frozen in Civil Case to Pay for Attorney in Parallel Criminal Case:

by ktizo 14y ago

Well, actually he has precedent in his favour. CFTC v. Walsh: District Court Releases Funds Frozen in Civil Case to Pay for Attorney in Parallel Criminal Case: http://www.columbialawreview.org/articles/comment-cftc-v-walsh-district-court-releases-funds-frozen-in-civil-case-to-pay-for-attorney-in-parallel-criminal-case http://www.columbialawreview.org/articles/comment-cftc-v-wal... Also, how else do you get to have funds released other than through petition? And he has already submitted to the justice system, otherwise he wouldn't be turning up in court.

cjensen 14y ago
I don't disagree with what you said. But the topic was in regard to someone refusing to submit to justice unless their conditions were met. The point is, he must submit to the court before the court can grant his petition.
- ktizo 14y ago
  He hasn't refused, he is fighting extradition in court. How can he have refused to submit to justice if he is taking part in court proceedings? Submitting to justice is not the same as doing whatever you are told, at least not since the establishment of habeas corpus as a standard.
  - cjensen 14y ago
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the funds are frozen by the US, not NZ. "Submitting to Justice" does not mean "Submit to Prosecutor." It means making yourself available to the Court for the purpose of defending yourself at risk of being found guilty and punished. US Courts are not going to consider the petitions of someone who won't show up to Court. For example, Roman Polanski wishes to petition the US Courts regarding his Criminal Case. The US Courts correctly refuse to hear those petitions so long as Polanski is hiding from the Court.
    - ktizo 14y ago
      The funds are seized and frozen by Hong Kong and New Zealand at the request of the US authorities, which is how he has already managed to get some of it back from the New Zealand authorites.

by ktizo 14y ago

cjensen 14y ago

I don't disagree with what you said. But the topic was in regard to someone refusing to submit to justice unless their conditions were met. The point is, he must submit to the court before the court can grant his petition.

ktizo 14y ago
He hasn't refused, he is fighting extradition in court. How can he have refused to submit to justice if he is taking part in court proceedings? Submitting to justice is not the same as doing whatever you are told, at least not since the establishment of habeas corpus as a standard.
- cjensen 14y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but the funds are frozen by the US, not NZ. "Submitting to Justice" does not mean "Submit to Prosecutor." It means making yourself available to the Court for the purpose of defending yourself at risk of being found guilty and punished. US Courts are not going to consider the petitions of someone who won't show up to Court. For example, Roman Polanski wishes to petition the US Courts regarding his Criminal Case. The US Courts correctly refuse to hear those petitions so long as Polanski is hiding from the Court.
  - ktizo 14y ago
    The funds are seized and frozen by Hong Kong and New Zealand at the request of the US authorities, which is how he has already managed to get some of it back from the New Zealand authorites.