6 ms·

As a US citizen, if I lived outside the US and was summoned back for "questioning" by adverse parties, there's almost no reason I can imagine going. If that's t

by jxf 13y ago

As a US citizen, if I lived outside the US and was summoned back for "questioning" by adverse parties, there's almost no reason I can imagine going. If that's truly all they want, then there's no reason it needs to be done in person. Depositions can be conducted remotely in many (though not all) jurisdictions.

busterarm 13y ago
I wonder how many folks out there agree with you in this case but not with say Julian Assange.
- aspensmonster 13y ago
  My understanding is that, under Swedish law, Assange has what amounts to an arrest warrant. That they don't call it that and insist on merely claiming he's "wanted for questioning" is, as far as I can tell, semantics. He'd be brought in for questioning and subsequently arrested pending a trial. I'm not a lawyer though, much less in Swedish law. I think Assange should go to Sweden to face questioning and his likely arrest. I think he's denying himself and the other parties involved justice on the matter, something Assange claims to hold in high regard. However, I also don't think he'd ever make it to Sweden to begin with, even if he did decide to leave the embassy. And, even if he did make it to Sweden, the U.S. State Department has made it clear that they will hunt him to the edge of the Earth for what he's done and enabled others to do.
  - gsnedders 13y ago
    He'd be arrested in the UK as soon as he stepped outside of the embassy for breach of the terms of bail (and that is a criminal offence and there is absolutely no question he has committed it), even if everything else was dropped.
    - sentenza 13y ago
      There are a bunch of policemen stationed permanently at the street corner, day and night. The daily cost for this is 11000 Pounds, total cost so far is more than 6 Mil[1](video is in German). Is that usually done in the UK? I don't know what this is, but it sure isn't subtle. [1] http://www.tagesschau.de/videoblog/london_calling/londoncalling-assange100.html http://www.tagesschau.de/videoblog/london_calling/londoncall...
- fludlight 13y ago
  Apples to oranges. This is a civil proceeding relating to a bankruptcy while Sweden issued a warrant for Assange's arrest. From wikipedia: "Ecuadorian officials also suggested that Swedish authorities could question Assange at the embassy.[186][187] The prosecutor had already explained that Assange was not wanted "merely to assist with our enquiries," but for "the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings"—that is, to be arrested, charged, and tried."
  - busterarm 13y ago
    That's my whole point though. Merely questioning Karpeles isn't what they want...especially when it's looking more and more like he did something shady. And as far as Assange goes, the way it was initially reported it seemed like an innocent questioning for Assange as well (for those unfamiliar with Swedish law.
300bps 13y ago
You're right; this isn't even close to news. Essentially, the plaintiffs are complaining that Karpeles isn't volunteering to massively inconvenience himself to make the lives of the people suing him easier. Their offer to "pay all travel expenses" was hilarious. As if $5,000 or even 10x that amount is even a rounding error to the case they're pursuing against him.
- dragontamer 13y ago
  On the contrary: he's asking for bankruptcy protection from US Courts. US Courts can use bankruptcy law to protect you from your creditors. But if he refuses to comply with the Courts, then why should get get any bankruptcy protection?
  - 300bps 13y ago
    But if he refuses to comply with the Courts Who said he refuses to comply with the courts? He's opposing a filing made by the plaintiffs. The court has not even ruled on the filing (which is merely a request from the Plaintiffs for the court to order). Deposition by video conference is common. Alternatively, he's offered to meet them in Taiwan. The guy can be guilty of whatever, but to paint him negatively because he's not going out of his way to help someone who wants to destroy him doesn't make sense to me.
    - dragontamer 13y ago
      1. He borrowed money from various US Institutions. 2. He has failed to return that money. Furthermore, he claims he cannot repay the money back and requests Bankruptcy protection The Plaintiffs are in their right to try and get their money back. You don't just borrow millions of dollars and lose it all. Actually, you're allowed to do that in the US as long as you file Bankruptcy protection and listen to court requests and make an honest effort to repay as much of the money back. Its one of the reasons why the US is good for businesses, Bankruptcy law reduces the risks businesses make in regards to losing money / paying creditors. It is okay to fail in the US... but only if you properly document your failures and make an honest effort to repay what you owe. However, that is not what he has done. He's hiding out in Taiwan thinking there is some government conspiracy against him. On the contrary, US Laws are relatively forgiving. Hell, he may have multiple layers of legal defenses: if he properly created a Limited-liability corporation, his personal wealth will remain uneffected. Currently, he is NOT responsible for paying back the millions upon millions of dollars that he should be responsible for. But that is only because of Bankruptcy protection. The US Courts and US Law protects you from creditors in this situation. The Texas Court is protecting him from creditors currently. He does NOT have to pay all the money back, so long as the courts are on his side. However, the Texas Courts are complaining because this man is utterly ridiculous and ignorant on how the US Court system works. He is biting the hand that feeds him, so to speak. In fact, it is quite unfair that the US Law treats businesses with such leniency. Student Loans evade bankruptcy protection for example. Nevertheless, if Karpeles plays his cards right, he will not have to pay back his loans. But he has to work with the Texas court for that kind of protection. It is only fair. And remember, this isn't the "Federal Government" giving him this protection, it is the State of Texas. The Texas Court is asking for him to enter Texas. I'm not from that state, but I imagine that Texas has more respect for people who actually put forth the effort to appear in person in court. Anything less is rather disrespectful to the Judge.
spiritplumber 13y ago
"You already were able to contact me, so sure, question me all you like over the phone or over Skype. For quality assurance purposes this phone call will be recorded"

by jxf 13y ago

busterarm 13y ago

I wonder how many folks out there agree with you in this case but not with say Julian Assange.

aspensmonster 13y ago
My understanding is that, under Swedish law, Assange has what amounts to an arrest warrant. That they don't call it that and insist on merely claiming he's "wanted for questioning" is, as far as I can tell, semantics. He'd be brought in for questioning and subsequently arrested pending a trial. I'm not a lawyer though, much less in Swedish law. I think Assange should go to Sweden to face questioning and his likely arrest. I think he's denying himself and the other parties involved justice on the matter, something Assange claims to hold in high regard. However, I also don't think he'd ever make it to Sweden to begin with, even if he did decide to leave the embassy. And, even if he did make it to Sweden, the U.S. State Department has made it clear that they will hunt him to the edge of the Earth for what he's done and enabled others to do.
- gsnedders 13y ago
  He'd be arrested in the UK as soon as he stepped outside of the embassy for breach of the terms of bail (and that is a criminal offence and there is absolutely no question he has committed it), even if everything else was dropped.
  - sentenza 13y ago
    There are a bunch of policemen stationed permanently at the street corner, day and night. The daily cost for this is 11000 Pounds, total cost so far is more than 6 Mil[1](video is in German). Is that usually done in the UK? I don't know what this is, but it sure isn't subtle. [1] http://www.tagesschau.de/videoblog/london_calling/londoncalling-assange100.html http://www.tagesschau.de/videoblog/london_calling/londoncall...
fludlight 13y ago
Apples to oranges. This is a civil proceeding relating to a bankruptcy while Sweden issued a warrant for Assange's arrest. From wikipedia: "Ecuadorian officials also suggested that Swedish authorities could question Assange at the embassy.[186][187] The prosecutor had already explained that Assange was not wanted "merely to assist with our enquiries," but for "the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings"—that is, to be arrested, charged, and tried."
- busterarm 13y ago
  That's my whole point though. Merely questioning Karpeles isn't what they want...especially when it's looking more and more like he did something shady. And as far as Assange goes, the way it was initially reported it seemed like an innocent questioning for Assange as well (for those unfamiliar with Swedish law.

300bps 13y ago

You're right; this isn't even close to news. Essentially, the plaintiffs are complaining that Karpeles isn't volunteering to massively inconvenience himself to make the lives of the people suing him easier. Their offer to "pay all travel expenses" was hilarious. As if $5,000 or even 10x that amount is even a rounding error to the case they're pursuing against him.

dragontamer 13y ago
On the contrary: he's asking for bankruptcy protection from US Courts. US Courts can use bankruptcy law to protect you from your creditors. But if he refuses to comply with the Courts, then why should get get any bankruptcy protection?
- 300bps 13y ago
  But if he refuses to comply with the Courts Who said he refuses to comply with the courts? He's opposing a filing made by the plaintiffs. The court has not even ruled on the filing (which is merely a request from the Plaintiffs for the court to order). Deposition by video conference is common. Alternatively, he's offered to meet them in Taiwan. The guy can be guilty of whatever, but to paint him negatively because he's not going out of his way to help someone who wants to destroy him doesn't make sense to me.
  - dragontamer 13y ago
    1. He borrowed money from various US Institutions. 2. He has failed to return that money. Furthermore, he claims he cannot repay the money back and requests Bankruptcy protection The Plaintiffs are in their right to try and get their money back. You don't just borrow millions of dollars and lose it all. Actually, you're allowed to do that in the US as long as you file Bankruptcy protection and listen to court requests and make an honest effort to repay as much of the money back. Its one of the reasons why the US is good for businesses, Bankruptcy law reduces the risks businesses make in regards to losing money / paying creditors. It is okay to fail in the US... but only if you properly document your failures and make an honest effort to repay what you owe. However, that is not what he has done. He's hiding out in Taiwan thinking there is some government conspiracy against him. On the contrary, US Laws are relatively forgiving. Hell, he may have multiple layers of legal defenses: if he properly created a Limited-liability corporation, his personal wealth will remain uneffected. Currently, he is NOT responsible for paying back the millions upon millions of dollars that he should be responsible for. But that is only because of Bankruptcy protection. The US Courts and US Law protects you from creditors in this situation. The Texas Court is protecting him from creditors currently. He does NOT have to pay all the money back, so long as the courts are on his side. However, the Texas Courts are complaining because this man is utterly ridiculous and ignorant on how the US Court system works. He is biting the hand that feeds him, so to speak. In fact, it is quite unfair that the US Law treats businesses with such leniency. Student Loans evade bankruptcy protection for example. Nevertheless, if Karpeles plays his cards right, he will not have to pay back his loans. But he has to work with the Texas court for that kind of protection. It is only fair. And remember, this isn't the "Federal Government" giving him this protection, it is the State of Texas. The Texas Court is asking for him to enter Texas. I'm not from that state, but I imagine that Texas has more respect for people who actually put forth the effort to appear in person in court. Anything less is rather disrespectful to the Judge.

spiritplumber 13y ago

"You already were able to contact me, so sure, question me all you like over the phone or over Skype. For quality assurance purposes this phone call will be recorded"