4 ms·

Call me a kook but I personally cannot rule out the possibility that he was made to stand down.

adaml_623 14y ago
I think we can safely assume that unlike the judges in the Pirate Bay case some pressure was applied from above for him to stand aside. Last I heard there was not going to be a need for an extradition hearing as Mr Dotcom was volunteering to go to the US and stand trial as he was certain he would be found not guilty in a courtroom.
- ramblerman 14y ago
  > Last I heard there was not going to be a need for an extradition hearing as Mr Dotcom was volunteering to go to the US and stand trial as he was certain he would be found not guilty in a courtroom Not quite. Dotcom has offered to voluntarily fly to the US in return for them releasing a portion of his funds so he can mount a defence. The likelyhood that the US will accept his deal is close to 0.
rprasad 14y ago
All jurisdictions which follow British law, or which are based on British law to some extent (like the U.S.) have judicial ethical guidelines that generally require a judge to stand down if he makes statements that indicate or suggest he cannot impartially judge the case before him based on the law or merits that specifically apply. This judge said "The US is the enemy" while presiding over a case in which the U.S. was the primary opposing litigant. A statement that strongly worded strongly suggests he would not be able to impartially judge the remaining proceedings. Consequently, the instant he made that statement, he was ethically obligated to stand down. In some jurisdictions, not standing down would result in disrobement and potentially disbarrment. Indeed, in most jurisdictions with these rules, judicial decisions can be struck down for a judge's refusal to stand down after making such statements. The one exception is SCOTUS, because its decisions are not subject to further review except by SCOTUS itself.

I think we can safely assume that unlike the judges in the Pirate Bay case some pressure was applied from above for him to stand aside. Last I heard there was not going to be a need for an extradition hearing as Mr Dotcom was volunteering to go to the US and stand trial as he was certain he would be found not guilty in a courtroom.

ramblerman 14y ago
> Last I heard there was not going to be a need for an extradition hearing as Mr Dotcom was volunteering to go to the US and stand trial as he was certain he would be found not guilty in a courtroom Not quite. Dotcom has offered to voluntarily fly to the US in return for them releasing a portion of his funds so he can mount a defence. The likelyhood that the US will accept his deal is close to 0.

rprasad 14y ago

All jurisdictions which follow British law, or which are based on British law to some extent (like the U.S.) have judicial ethical guidelines that generally require a judge to stand down if he makes statements that indicate or suggest he cannot impartially judge the case before him based on the law or merits that specifically apply. This judge said "The US is the enemy" while presiding over a case in which the U.S. was the primary opposing litigant. A statement that strongly worded strongly suggests he would not be able to impartially judge the remaining proceedings. Consequently, the instant he made that statement, he was ethically obligated to stand down. In some jurisdictions, not standing down would result in disrobement and potentially disbarrment. Indeed, in most jurisdictions with these rules, judicial decisions can be struck down for a judge's refusal to stand down after making such statements. The one exception is SCOTUS, because its decisions are not subject to further review except by SCOTUS itself.