Was Kim Dotcom another Obama target, LF certainly believes so – So who’s next on the septics “hit list”

LF decided to transcribe the (above) audio recording of New Zealand Justice Campaigner Dermot Nottingham making legitimate inquiries of the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security Paul Neazor as to whether he was on the list of 88 New Zealanders that may have been subject to illegal surveillance by the  Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB).

The conversation is an amazing insight into competency and administrative issues that may mean that Paul Neazor is not competent, or not independent enough to remain.

Firstly we will deal with Paul Neazors job description.  The Ministry of Justice site explains:

“The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security assists Ministers responsible for intelligence and security agencies in the oversight and review of the agencies: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Security Bureau. Specifically, the Inspector-General assists in ensuring that the activities of the agencies comply with the law and that complaints relating to them are independently investigated.”

The New Zealand Inspector General Intelligence and Security Act 1996 confirms the role of the Act at section 4;

4. Object

The object of this Act is to provide for the appointment of an Inspector-General who will assist each Minister who is responsible for an intelligence and security agency in the oversight and review of that intelligence and security agency and who will, in particular,—

(a) 
assist the Minister to ensure that the activities of that intelligence and security agency comply with the law; and

(b) 
ensure that complaints relating to that intelligence and security agency are independently investigated.

In our first article we reported that Mr Neazor forgot the name of the director of the GCSB.  Neazor had to obtain the name from paperwork that was on his desk.  This means that Neazor has lost his short-term memory, a clear sign of senility – disease of the brain.  Today we at LF confirm that Neazor could not remember Dermot Nottingham’s name, referring to Nottingham as “Jason” in the following part of the transcript;

Nottingham: Yeah well I will give you my name.  My name is Dermot Nottingham, I have been involved in a large number of justice campaigns and getting people off convictions and various other things and of course I have upset a lot of people doing that

Neazor: I don’t care a tuppence about you to be perfectly honest………

Nottingham: Who’s the director of the GCSB at the moment?

Neazor: Um Ian Um…..[long pause] .. maybe Ian, I know his name…..I know him…Ian….[pause] half a minute, I will tell you in a minute [very long pause – paper shuffling to get name]…Ian Fletcher ….but I am pretty sure that is the answer that you will get  and you wont get any assurance, but from what I know of the, Jason, what you have said to me, I would think that they would give a hoot.

Other signs of senility, and there are numerous, are a lack of care, or a distinct change in attitude, from appropriate behavior to inappropriate behavior.  Inappropriate behavior can come in any form depending on the circumsatances.  In our article yesterday an LF researcher [medically qualified] stated the following about what she had observed of the content of the conversation between Neazor and Nottingham, and her observations of recent media interviews of Neazor;

To put this in context, I ask XXXXX to imagine if Mr Neazor had been asked the same question by a member of parliament during a select committee process and had behaved in the same manner before the glare of the media.  It would have been hugely embarrassing for Mr Neazor, and those that he was addressing.  Such inexplicable behavior, [but for illness], would have been immediately brought to the attention of the Prime Minister and the caucus leading to Neazors expedient exit from office………”

Nottingham clearly indicates what his issue is, and clearly confirms his name and his background.  You would think that Neazor would act appropriately and take Nottingham’s name and contact details in case the matter was raised with the director Ian Fletcher.  Instead Neazor cannot remember Nottinghams name moments after Nottingham has clearly pronounced it, and cannot remember the name of the Director of the GCSB, which name he would have reason to deal with daily if not weekly.

Ian Fletcher was appointed on January 29 2012 and has been in office 17 months, more than enough time for Neazor to acquaint himself with his first and last names.

LF now turns to the legislation that provides the terms of operation of the Inspector General of the Intelligence and Security and the Director of the GCSB.

The functions of the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security can be found at section 11 of the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security Act 1996.

 11. Functions of Inspector-General

(1)
 Subject to the provisions of this Act, the functions of the Inspector-General shall be—

(a)
 to inquire, of the Inspector-General’s own motion or at the request of the Minister, into any matter that relates to the compliance by an intelligence and security agency with the law of New Zealand:

(b)
 to inquire into any complaint by—

(i)
 a New Zealand person; or

(ii)
a person who is an employee or former employee of an intelligence and security agency, that—

that person has or may have been adversely affected by any act, omission, practice, policy, or procedure of an intelligence and security agency:

(c)
 to inquire at the request of the Minister or of the Inspector-General’s own motion, but subject to the concurrence of the Minister, into—

(i) 
any matter where it appears that a New Zealand person has or may have been adversely affected by any act, omission, practice, policy, or procedure of an intelligence and security agency:

(ii)
 the propriety of particular activities of an intelligence and security agency

(d)
 without limiting the generality of paragraph (a), to review from time to time the effectiveness and appropriateness of the procedures adopted by the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service to ensure compliance with the provisions of sections 4A to 4G of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act 1969 in relation to the issue and execution of intelligence warrants:

(da) 
without limiting the generality of paragraph (a), to review the effectiveness and appropriateness of the procedures adopted by the Government Communications Security Bureau to ensure compliance with the provisions of Part 3 of the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 in relation to the issue and execution of interception warrants and computer access authorisations:

(e)
 to prepare and submit to the Minister from time to time for his or her approval programmes for the general oversight and review of each intelligence and security agency and for the discharge by the Inspector-General, in relation to each intelligence and security agency, of the particular functions specified in this section:

(f) 
to carry out any programme or amended programme or substituted programme approved by the Minister under paragraph (e).

(2)
 The Inspector-General shall not, of his or her own motion or in response to a complaint made to the Inspector-General, perform any of the functions set out in subsection (1) in relation to any activity of an intelligence and security agency except to the extent that-

(a) 
a New Zealand person or an employee or former employee of an intelligence and security agency has or may have been adversely affected; or

(b)
 the law of New Zealand may have been contravened.

(3) 
In carrying out any inquiry in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1)(c)(ii), it shall not be a function of the Inspector-General to inquire into any action taken by the Minister.



(4)
 Except to the extent strictly necessary for the performance of his or her functions under subsection (1), the Inspector-General shall not inquire into any matter that is operationally sensitive, including any matter that relates to intelligence collection and production methods or sources of information.



(5)
 The Inspector-General shall not conduct an inquiry into a complaint made under subsection (1) by an employee or former employee of an intelligence and security agency unless—

(a) 
all established internal remedies have been exhausted; or

(b)
 the employee or former employee and the chief executive of the relevant intelligence and security agency otherwise agree in writing.

(6)
 Where an inquiry has been conducted by the Inspector-General following a complaint, the Inspector-General may make such recommendations for the redress of that complaint as the Inspector-General thinks fit (including remedies that involve the payment of compensation).

Breaking this lengthy explanation down to some key words, LF believes that subsection [3] [c][i] of section 11 thwarts the operative powers of the Inspector General as the Inspector General requires the “concurrence of the minister”.  Now which Minister that had been involved in wrongdoing would grant such “concurrence”.

Additionally subsection 1 of section 11 seems to be in direct contravention of section [3][c][i] excepting that it qualifies itself by the insertion of the words “subject to the provisions of this Act”.  In support of this dangerous subliminal qualification sub section [3] of section 11 of the Act states;


(3) 
In carrying out any inquiry in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1)(c)(ii), it shall not be a function of the Inspector-General to inquire into any action taken by the Minister.


The following discourse between Nottingham and Neazor seems to show that Neazor is naïve or is trying to wrongly assert a belief to Nottingham that no IG should reasonably hold given the functions he is supposed to carry out;

Nottingham: Yeah but I have also upset some politicians, quite powerful politicians who are well connected and its um yeah they have released information

Neazor: They they are not allowed to indulge in party politics

Nottingham: Yeah I know

Neazor: The intelligence agencies are not allowed to indulge in party politics

Nottingham: Yeah

Neazor: and nor I mean I have been in this job for some years now and they couldn’t care a less, that’s not what they are after

Looking at the “purpose” of the Act [as far as its authors were concerned], Part 3 provides clarification;

Part 3
Interception of communications

Purpose of Part

13. Purpose of Part

The purpose of this Part is,—

(a) 
subject to the restrictions imposed by this Part, to enable the Bureau to obtain foreign intelligence; and

(b)
 to authorise the interception of communications (whether under section 16 or under an interception warrant or a computer access authorisation) only if the purpose of the interception is to obtain foreign intelligence.

LF feels that the clarification “only if the purpose of the interception is to obtain foreign intelligence” is very succinct and that Neazors explanation to Nottingham about how the GCSB had the right to even think that its interception of communications between Kim Dotcom and his colleagues was legal is quite bizarre;

Nottingham: [laughing] well I wouldn’t give a, I would just want to know, I would be happy of they said no

Neazor: Yeah I understand that

Nottingham: Just because I think people have certain rights and I would be happy, happier to think that New Zealand hadn’t become a sort of little brother of America in the way that they are handling what they are doing with the guy Snowdon, and it was just really the situation of Snowdon that made me, because I have been aware of this situation for a long time and

Neazor: Oh yeah

Nottingham:  and I just thought you know well after Snowdon I just thought you know we should have information and we could have just jumped in with the yanks

Neazor: To be honest unless you have done something that affects national security, or could affect national security, if you are involved with trying to get information in New Zealand and feed it out to foreign country or something like that or you are trying to get.. you are part of a drug ring or you are trying to finance insurrection outfits somewhere else which might onto New Zealand youre not even in their [pause]

Nottingham: Their radar

Neazor: their target range no

Nottingham: but then again dotcom was not subject to any of that ….he simply run a business

Neazor: [long pause] ahhh yeah except that he was …what started him off was the US wanted him for…to put him in front of a court like this Wikileaks fellow in London, and the last thing Mr Dotcom wants is to go in front of a court….in America….which is where they were trying to get him

Nottingham: Yes but of course that is an American jurisdiction and so that is the reason why my concerns umm dotcom was a resident of New Zealand and so shouldn’t have been subject to any sort of surveillance so if he can be surveilled, I can be surveilled, and all I want to know is whether I have or not.

Neazor: Well that one was clearly a mistake because um it wasn’t realized that he …he actually isn’t a New Zealand citizen or he wasn’t at that time …hes a German or a Finn

Nottingham: yep

Neazor: um and they just didn’t realize that he came into a category of people who’ve, because of their business connections have been able to get a visa to be a resident in New Zealand and they thought he was whatever his is a German or Finn or whatever

Nottingham:  yep

Neazor: and he wasn’t a New Zealander at all and that’s where the mistake was”

Neazor says that the surveillance of Dotcom was a mistake, and then says it was not an error as Dotcom was effectively still a foreigner.  Of concern Neazor states that Dotcom’s predicament is like Julian Assange, and nothing could be further from the truth in various key aspects.  Besides what has a matter in London dealing with Assange, got to do with a matter in Auckland, dealing with Dotcom.

Dotcom was made a New Zealand resident sometime in November 2010 and the New Zealand Immigration Department was so concerned about the controversy that may be caused by Dotcoms approval that it red flagged the file;

“We are requesting that this application be kept as confidential as possible to avoid further media speculation or attention.”

How the fuck did the New Zealand Police Service and Crown Law Office not know that they were breaking the law intercepting Dotcoms communications about taking his kids to school, and reading the Coatesville Mansions baby-room for the arrival of his twins.   The interception was to enable the Police to know where Dotcom and his associates were so they could pull off a Hollywood style raid that would send a message to all internet service providers.

This message was “If we can nail Dotcom in “first world” New Zealand “getting out of bed” we can get anyone anywhere in the world”.

Dotcom faces bullshit charges relating to Hollywood corporates wanting to set an example of a “foreigner” internet operator being subject to the misuse of the draconian powers of the American “G MEN” in order to protect their multi billion dollar entertainment interests.

Hollywood has sold down propaganda to its global audience for nearly a century and is calling in some favours.  Civil suits could have been filed against Dotcom, but of course they would have been thrown out due to the process of complaint, and the right to remedy such complaints that are contained in American legislation.

Such civil complaint process and remedy will ultimately be the end to the American attempt to extradite Dotcom, and it is a joke that this matter has not been already resolved by Dotcoms lawyers.

No doubt the lawyers are getting fucking well paid, but we feel that Dotcom should be asking his lawyers some questions at this point.

The truth of the matter was that the Hollywood corporates did not have sufficient evidence to bring a civil writ, and even if they did, and applications for discovery were made, they did not believe that such an expensive corporate process should be used when they could call upon their criminal government to ask another criminal government to raid Dotcoms home with illegal warrants and the use of black helicopters.

All over copyright uploads on Dotcoms “pay to store” servers.  It was the international impact that they wanted and that is what they got no matter what ultimately happens to Dotcom.  As an example of how impossible a civil writ was against Dotcom.

Dotcom internet presence was allegedly 4% of the Global internet usage.  Imagine an application for discovery of Megauploads files.  The Courts in America would rule that such an application was a “fishing expedition” and “onerous” of the respondent.

An application for security for costs would have been successful, and likely unable to have been met by Dotcoms detractors.  What sum to cover the investigation of such amounts of information?.

What has not been considered is the likely impact of the Edward Snowdon revelations in the Dotcom case.  Has John Key seen information that has not been released? LF thinks this is highly likely, or moreover dumb-arse Key has been shown information that the FBI has stated was sourced through the mechanisms the US has employed against it allies and its enemies, which outraged Ed Snowden finally decided was a step too far.

The yanks called upon John Key’s corrupt affiliation with these Hollywood interests in order to allow the yanks to illegally operate in New Zealand, and to issue illegal warrants and illegally detain Kim Dotcom in a New Zealand prison.

Key then lied about his knowledge of the illegal operation blaming his 2IC, the “omnidumb” Bill “can’t speak” English.

Whereas, Julian Assange is charged in absentia with the most serious allegations imaginable.   When we say imaginable we mean that the charges are the imagination of some fucked up yank who probably worked along side Edward Snowden, before Snowden said enough’s enough.

In theory both Snowden and Assange could face being murdered by the American Government if finally brought before the corrupt Courts of the United States, whereas Dotcom faces fuck knows what if sent back to the states by New Zealand’s corrupt judiciary.  In truth both probably face assassination before they get before a US Court.

Inspector General of Intelligence and Security is a key role in New Zealand’s administrative framework.  The Inspector is expected to insure that the GCSB and the SIS act never to snoop on matters that do not concern their respective roles.  The GCSB has incredible draconian powers as defined in section 16 of the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003;

16. Certain interceptions permitted without interception warrant or computer access authorisation

(1)
 The Director, or an employee of the Bureau, or a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may, without an interception warrant, or, as the case requires, without a computer access authorisation, intercept foreign communications only if the interception is authorised by this Act or by another enactment.



(2)
 The Director, or an employee of the Bureau, or a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may, without an interception warrant, or, as the case requires, without a computer access authorisation, intercept foreign communications by using an interception device, but only if—

(a)
 the interception does not involve any activity specified in section 15[1]; and

(b)
 any access to a computer system is limited to access to 1 or more communication links between computers or to remote terminals; and

(c)
 the interception is carried out by the Director or with the authority of the Director for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence; and

(d) 
the foreign communications do not contain private communications other than private communications that—

(i) 
are produced, sent, or received by, or sent to, a foreign organisation or a foreign person; and

(ii) 
contain, or may reasonably be expected to contain, foreign intelligence.

(3)
 This section is subject to section 14.

The Act should never allow the Prime Minister to be the Minister, and in fact should never have a Minister being in charge, so that Neazors ludicrous protestations that Key would never interfere for his own benefit would have some credence.  Key makes Obama look honest.  The fact that Key made sure that his “school mate” Ian Fletcher got the directors job shows that Key is completely corrupt.  They had dinner together before the appointment – a fact that Key, somewhat conveniently, “forgot”.

However section 16 refers to section 14 and 15[1] which make it clear that the powers contained in section 16 of the GCSB Act cannot be used to intercept any private communications of New Zealanders other than such communications that contain foreign intelligence sent or received from a foreign organization.

Section 14 of the GCSB Act provides;

Restrictions imposed on interceptions

14. Interceptions not to target domestic communications

Neither the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may authorise or take any action for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person (not being a foreign organisation or a foreign person) who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident.

 

15. Interceptions for which warrant or authorisation required

(1)
 Unless authorised by an interception warrant to do so, neither the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may—

(a)
 physically connect an interception device to any part of a network; or

(b) 
install an interception device in a place for the purpose of intercepting communications that occur in the place.

(2)
 Unless authorised by section 16 or by a computer access authorisation to do so, neither the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may access a computer system that the person concerned is not otherwise authorised to access.

What is interesting is that Dotcom was arrested at his leased Coatesville Mansion on 20 January 2012, just 9 days before John Keys life long friend Ian Fletcher was appointed Director of the GCSB.  Coincidence….we think not!. 

Key denied knowing anything about the intention of the US to file indictments against Dotcom on 5 January 2012, or that he influenced the appointment of his friend to the directorship of the GCSB, which both were later proven to be yet further lies by New Zealands duplicitous Prime Minister.  The indictments were for the following against Dotcom;

1. Racketeering

2. Conspiring to commit copyright infringement

3. Conspiring to commit money laundering

How the fuck are these charges anything to do with National Security or drug dealing or insurrection, irrelevant of the fact that Dotcom was a New Zealand resident.

Other illegal activity committed under the nose of the Prime Minister was the illegal seizure of Dotcoms property.

Look into any poor pricks private communications and the GCSB and the prosecuting authority could manufacture any number of “conspiracy” allegations against absolutely anyone.

An example would be where a plumber talks to a client about doing an under the table contract, and then there is no proof that it actually occurred, but the conspiracy has been seemingly proven to have existed.

Justice Winkelmann declared “The warrants could not authorise seizure of irrelevant material, and are therefore invalid.” It emerged later that the Crown knew it used the wrong orders while the raid was in progress and Dotcom should have been given the chance to challenge the seizure.

Of course Key and his cohorts also knew that giving Dotcom any right to challenge the design and course of what was intended would mean that none of it could occur, and so New Zealanders, inclusive of Dotcom, were kept in the dark, until the early morning of 20 January 2012 when kiwi cops played toy soldiers on Dotcoms Coatesville property chasing Dotcom down to ground in a panic room in the middle of his mansion where Dotcom waited for his fate at the top of a curved stair case.  Can you just imagine the terror that went through Dotcoms mind – a matter that has not really been adequately represented in the media.

The Crown was forced to reveal that police had handed seized hard drives to FBI staff who copied them at the police crime lab in South Auckland and sent the copies back to the US in order to attempt to allow their American counterparts to “invent a case” against an innocent man.

Justice Winkelmann ruled that handing the hard drives seized in the raid to the FBI was in breach of extradition legislation and the FBI’s cloning of the hard-drives was also invalid.  “Invalid” – does that mean that any information obtained from that process cannot be used against Dotcom.

Declaring the search warrants to be invalid was a significant victory for Dotcom because he was struggling to pay his mounting legal bills. At a hearing in the High Court on 28 August 2012, Justice Judith Potter allowed Dotcom to withdraw approximately NZ$6 million (US$4.8 million) from his seized funds.

Dotcom was also allowed to sell nine of his cars. The amount released was to cover $2.6 million in existing legal bills, $1 million in future costs, and another $1 million in rent on his New Zealand mansion.

Dotcom estimates the cost of defending himself and his MegaUpload business against copyright charges will top US$50 million (NZ$62m).  What we wonder is how the fuck are the yanks going to protect the integrity of the evidentiary trail to enable the evidence to be admissible and to have any probative value in the extradition proceedings.

Surely the argument can be made that the criminal breaches of so many Acts designed to protect New Zealand residents, and indeed any person subject to state interference and oppression, are at such a magnitude in the case of the prosecution of Kim Dotcom, that none of the evidence obtained illegally can be brought against him. Surely a decision in this regard should be sought as a matter of immediacy, and that may be a complete barrier to extradition.  Of course Kim Dotcom would still have to fear the yanks grabbing him when he left the safety of New Zealand.

In May 2013 High Court Judge Helen Winkelmann ordered the police to go through everything taken illegally from Dotcom and return anything that is irrelevant to their investigation – and to do so at their own expense.   LF feels that Dotcom is going to succeed in defending not only the extradition proceedings but all of the allegations against him invented by the US Government, and supported by the corrupt actions of John Key, his government, and its agencies such as the GCSB.

Pathetically, Key apologized YEAH RIGHT to Dotcom in the following manner;

“I apologize to Mr Dotcom. I apologize to New Zealanders because every New Zealander…is entitled to be protected from the law when it comes to the GCSB Government Communications Security Bureau, and we failed to provide that appropriate protection for him

Now we at LF believe that John Key knew that Neazor was a danger to Keys previous illegal activity prior to the raid on Dotcoms home and was worried at Neazor fronting the media due to the onset of dementia.  Key should have acted to remove the Inspector General subject to the provision found in section 7 of the Inspector General Intelligence and Security Act 1996, but believed that such actions would bring his standing as Prime Minister, nationally, and internationally, into further disrepute, if not ridicule;

7. Removal of Inspector-General

The person appointed as Inspector-General may be removed or suspended from office by the Governor-General, upon an address from the House of Representatives, for disability affecting performance of duty, bankruptcy, neglect of duty, or misconduct.

What Key did was supposedly clever, but was in fact quite stupid. The watchdog of the GCSB is no one but the General Inspector.

Key allowed the senile Neazor to write a report, knowing that Neazor would go along with whatever the Government of the day was to say; especially given that Neazors attitude was that he was about to retire and did not want a fuss.  Look at what Neazor says to Nottingham a few days ago;

Nottingham: Right so are you actually the inspector General

Neazor: yep yep

Nottingham: OK I was just wondering

Neazor: I am about to finish

Nottingham: Right right OK um

Neazor: But I um you know I cant answer your question because that’s what the answer would be, but from what you have told me about yourself and your activity, I just wouldn’t I wouldn’t expect anybody to care from that, from that point of view.

What sort of attitude is this.  “I wouldn’t expect anybody to care”.  Well they screwed Dotcom illegally did they not Mr Neazor?  Why would your retirement have anything to do with you doing your fucking job?  Look at what Neazor say next about the extent of an inquiry made by a concerned New Zealander;

Neazor: I had a guy once who said to me much the same as you have said and I did an inquiry and they said they said no we don’t , for him anyway, no we don’t know anything about this fella, and he then complained to me that they must have been lying because he was so active in this and so active in that that he must be on their watch list

Nottingham: Right right

Neazor: it was if he ought to be in the honors list and he wasn’t

The Act states the following under the provision for the Inspector Generals powers to search the offices of the GCSB or the SIS;

21. Power of entry

For the purposes of any inquiry under this Act, the Inspector-General may, after giving notice to the chief executive of an intelligence and security agency of the Inspector-General’s intention to do so, enter, at any reasonable time, any premises or place occupied or used by the agency.

Section 19 of the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security Act 1996 provides extremely wide powers to initiate proceedings, to hear evidence in private, regulate the proceedings as he thinks fit inclusive of hearing evidence that may not be admissible in Court, and that no decision, report, or finding can be questioned, reviewed or quashed by any Court, but for a lack of jurisdiction.

19.      Proceedings of Inspector-General

(1)
 The Inspector-General, on commencing an inquiry,—

(a)
 shall notify the chief executive of the relevant intelligence and security agency of both the commencement of the inquiry and the nature of the inquiry; and

(b)
 if the inquiry relates to a complaint, shall provide the chief executive with a copy of the complaint.

(2)
 Where an inquiry is initiated by the Inspector-General of his or her own motion in accordance with the provisions of section [11][1][a], the Inspector-General shall advise the Minister of both the commencement of the inquiry and the nature of the inquiry.



(3) 
If the inquiry relates to a complaint, the Inspector-General may require the complainant to give on oath any information relating to the complaint, and may for that purpose administer an oath to the complainant.



(4)
 The Inspector-General shall permit the complainant to be heard, and to be represented by counsel or any other person, and to have other persons testify to the complainant’s record, reliability, and character.



(5)
 In accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section, the Inspector-General may receive such evidence as the Inspector-General thinks fit, whether admissible in a court of law or not.



(6)
 Every inquiry by the Inspector-General shall be conducted in private.



(7) 
If at any time during the course of an inquiry it appears to the Inspector-General that there may be sufficient grounds for making any report or recommendation that may adversely affect an intelligence and security agency, or any employee of an intelligence and security agency, or any other person, the Inspector-General shall give to that intelligence and security agency, employee, or person an opportunity to be heard.



(8) 
Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Inspector-General shall regulate his or her procedure in such a manner as the Inspector-General thinks fit.



(9)
 Except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, no proceeding, report, or finding of the Inspector-General shall be challenged, reviewed, quashed, or called in question in any court”

Section 23 of the Act relates to the Inspector General having powers to hold his inquiry as if it were before a Judge conducting a judicial proceeding inclusive of the import of section 108 of the Crimes Act 1961 [relating to perjury];

23. Powers of Inspector-General in relation to inquiries

(1) 
The Inspector-General may require any person who, in the Inspector-General’s opinion, is able to give information relating to any matter to which an inquiry relates to furnish such information, and to produce such documents or things in the possession or under the control of that person, as in the opinion of the Inspector-General are relevant to the subject matter of the inquiry.



(2)
 The Inspector-General may summon and examine on oath any person who in the opinion of the Inspector-General is able to give any information relating to any matter to which an inquiry relates, and may for the purpose administer an oath to any person so summoned.



(3) 
Every such examination by the Inspector-General shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 108 of the Crimes Act 1961 (which relates to perjury).



(4) 
Subject to subsection (5), every person who appears as a witness before the Inspector-General shall have the same privileges in relation to the giving of information, the answering of questions, and the production of documents and papers and things as witnesses have in courts of law.



(5)
 Where any person is bound by the provisions of any enactment (being an Act of Parliament or any regulations within the meaning of the Regulations [disallowance] Act 1989 made by Order in Council) to maintain secrecy in relation to, or not to disclose, any matter, compliance by that person with a requirement of the Inspector-General (being a requirement made pursuant to subsection (1)) is not a breach of the relevant obligation of secrecy or non-disclosure or of the enactment by which that obligation is imposed.



(6)
 Witnesses’ fees, allowances, and travelling expenses according to the scales for the time being prescribed by regulations made under the Summary Proceedings Act 1957—

(a)
 shall be paid by the Inspector-General to any person who appears as a witness before the Inspector-General pursuant to a summons under subsection (2); and

(b) 
may, if the Inspector-General so decides, be paid by the Inspector-General to any other person who appears as a witness before the Inspector-General;—

            and those regulations, with all necessary modifications, shall apply accordingly.



(7) 
For the purposes of this section the Inspector-General shall have the powers of a court under any such regulations to fix or disallow, in whole or in part, or increase the amounts payable thereunder.



(8)
 Every person commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 who—

(a)
 without lawful justification or excuse, wilfully obstructs, hinders, or resists the Inspector-General or any other person in the exercise of his or her powers under this Act:

(b)
 without lawful justification or excuse, refuses or wilfully fails to comply with any lawful requirement of the Inspector-General or any other person under this Act:

(c) 
wilfully makes any false statement to or misleads or attempts to mislead the Inspector-General or any other person in the exercise of his or her powers under this Act.

 

Clearly in the discourse between Nottingham and Neazor, Neazor is obviously not prepared to listen to any form of complaint and merely indicates that he will blindly accept any statement made by the director of the GCSB or the SIS. Put simply Neazor is a complete waste of space and should have gone many years ago.

But can you imagine what a fucking embarrassment would ensue if senile Neazor had attempted to initiate and run such a proceeding.  Imagine Neazor forgetting the names of the witnesses, and attempting to recall what had been said by witnesses and counsel, and making sense of what would amount to a complicated affair.

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman said it’s not surprising that the GCSB has stepped outside the law.

 “The GCSB operates without any external scrutiny and in that situation it’s only human nature that people start to view themselves as a law unto themselves,” he says.

Whereas New Zealand’s corrupt Prime Minister says Mr Neazor felt the GCSB’s mistakes were only minor.

“They were very minor process issues, they were resolved fully to his satisfaction and he never raised them with me”

Neazor probably forgot Keys fucking name.

When 3 News raised those concerns with Neazor he couldn’t remember what they were, and instead compared his annual report to a poem by Robert Browning.

“Somebody asked Browning once what he meant by one of his poems and he said, ‘Only God and Browning knew what I meant and now only God knows,’”.

But Labour leader David Shearer wasn’t satisfied the matters were resolved.

“I’m not confident about the accountabilities in this organisation and the accountabilities that run right up to the Prime Minister,”

The Labour Party called for a full inquiry, as did the Greens Party.

The two numbnut leaders laid a complaint with police saying the GCSB illegally intercepted private communications. But of course the fucking Police were involved with the criminal activity against Dotcom so we all know nought will ever be coming out of that.  What is ridiculous about Shearers stance is that he is a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996 [section 7], and which membership contains the functions found at section 6;

6. Functions of Committee

(1)
 The functions of the Committee are—

(a)
 subject to subsection (2), to examine the policy, administration, and expenditure of each intelligence and security agency:

(b)
 subject to subsection (2), to consider any bill, petition, or other matter in relation to an intelligence and security agency referred to the Committee by the House of Representatives:

(c)
 to receive and consider the annual report of each intelligence and security agency:

(d)
 to consider any matter (not being a matter relating directly to the activities of an intelligence and security agency) referred to the Committee by the Prime Minister by reason of that matter’s security or intelligence implications:

(e)
 subject to section 18, to report to the House of Representatives on the activities of the Committee.

(2)
 The functions of the Committee do not include—

(a) 
inquiring into any matter within the jurisdiction of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security appointed under section 5 of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1996; or

(b) 
inquiring into any matter that is operationally sensitive, including any matter that relates to intelligence collection and production methods or sources of information; or

(c) 
originating or conducting inquiries into complaints by individuals concerning the activities of an intelligence and security agency that are capable of being resolved under any other enactment.

However subsection [2] of section [6] clearly confirms for the avoidance of doubt that the committee should not inquire;

“into any matter within the jurisdiction of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security appointed under section 5 of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1996”

Section 5 of the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security Act 1996 provides that the appointment of Inspector requires the Prime Minister to recommend the appointee following consultation with the leader of the opposition AKA David “wool pulled over his eyes’ Shearer.  What the fuck are you on about Shearer reporting the matter to the dirty cops that were up to their eyeballs in the conspiracy to breach any conceivable right Dotcom enjoys under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.  Some of those rights that come to mind are;

9. Right not to be subjected to torture or cruel treatment

Everyone has the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment.

21. Unreasonable search and seizure

Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property, or correspondence or otherwise.

22. Liberty of the person

Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained.

23. Rights of persons arrested or detained

(1)
 Everyone who is arrested or who is detained under any enactment—

(a)
 shall be informed at the time of the arrest or detention of the reason for it; and

(b) 
shall have the right to consult and instruct a lawyer without delay and to be informed of that right; and

(c)
 shall have the right to have the validity of the arrest or detention determined without delay by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the arrest or detention is not lawful

(2) 
Everyone who is arrested for an offence has the right to be charged promptly or to be released.



(3) 
Everyone who is arrested for an offence and is not released shall be brought as soon as possible before a court or competent tribunal.



(4) 
Everyone who is—

(a)
 arrested; or

(b) 
detained under any enactment—

for any offence or suspected offence shall have the right to refrain from making any statement and to be informed of that right.



(5) 
Everyone deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the person.

24. Rights of persons charged

Everyone who is charged with an offence—

(a) 
shall be informed promptly and in detail of the nature and cause of the charge; and

(b) 
shall be released on reasonable terms and conditions unless there is just cause for continued detention; and

(c) 
shall have the right to consult and instruct a lawyer; and

(d)
 shall have the right to adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence; and

(e) 
shall have the right, except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of a trial by jury when the penalty for the offence is or includes imprisonment for more than 3 months; and

(f) 
shall have the right to receive legal assistance without cost if the interests of justice so require and the person does not have sufficient means to provide for that assistance; and

(g)
 shall have the right to have the free assistance of an interpreter if the person cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

 27. Right to justice

(1)
 Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person’s rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law.



(2) 
Every person whose rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law have been affected by a determination of any tribunal or other public authority has the right to apply, in accordance with law, for judicial review of that determination.



(3) 
Every person has the right to bring civil proceedings against, and to defend civil proceedings brought by, the Crown, and to have those proceedings heard, according to law, in the same way as civil proceedings between individuals.

28. Other rights and freedoms not affected

An existing right or freedom shall not be held to be abrogated or restricted by reason only that the right or freedom is not included in this Bill of Rights or is included only in part.

29. Application to legal persons

Except where the provisions of this Bill of Rights otherwise provide, the provisions of this Bill of Rights apply, so far as practicable, for the benefit of all legal persons as well as for the benefit of all natural persons.

Going through the above protections of the Bill of Rights Act 1990, as they relate to the breaches of the Crown as against Kim Dotcom and his business legal persons, is important.

There is so much illegality, and bad faith by the Crown, and its agencies, and the Prime Minister, involved, that it can be safely said that Dotcom’s full legal bills should be paid by the Crown, given the enormity of the breaches of his rights thus far.

The New Zealand Crown knows full well it is on to a complete loser and just wants to go through the motions hoping that Dotcom will become yesterday’s news and that apathetic New Zealanders will just think well there must have been something that he did wrong, and that he got off because he had good lawyers.

However we at LF believe that Kim Dotcom must not forgive and forget.  He needs redress [compensation] involving not only himself and his family and employers affected by the illegal and tortuous activity,  but full compensation for lost earnings for his legal persons pursuant to section 29 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Of importance, the office of the Inspector can only be held, subject to subsection 3 of section 5 of the Act, by a person who has previously held office as a Judge of the High Court of New Zealand.

Neazor has been not only a judge of the High Court but has also held the position of Solicitor General – which surely means he is of the ilk never ever to bite off the hand that has feed his career – and besides, we assume Neazor wants to be in the honours list after he retires, as he seems to have a pip with anyone that likely does not deserve it [according to Neazors opinion] like New Zealand protestors and foreigners that have brought residency, like Kim Dotcom.

Instead of complaining to the filth, surely Shearer could have consulted with the Governor General and addressed the House of representatives to have Neazor removed pursuant to section 7 of the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security Act 1996, which has already been mentioned in this article but which will be repeated here;

7. Removal of Inspector-General

The person appointed as Inspector-General may be removed or suspended from office by the Governor-General, upon an address from the House of Representatives, for disability affecting performance of duty, bankruptcy, neglect of duty, or misconduct.

The charge would have been the same charge camera man Bradley Ambrose faced during the ‘teapot tape’ saga.  Of course that complaint was laid by John Key over a recorder that he had not noticed was right in front of him when he and fellow corrupt pollie fuck John “cuckold” Banks held a press conference only to ask to be left alone.

Key was appalled that his private conversations had been recorded by a cameraman during the process of a press conference that he had called.  Keys real reasoning was that the tape had embarrassing revelations about what he thought of other New Zealand people that he feigned to respect publicly.

Imagine if his house had been illegally raided, his property effectively stolen, and his business that earned millions of honest dollars and which paid millions of taxes closed down illegally.

Neazors significant cognitive incapacity or impairment may very well have been the reasoning behind Key and the GCSB deciding to Act illegally against Dotcom in so many ways that the behavior is inexplicable, other than it was intentionally illegal and designed to prejudice Dotcom.

On the GCSB site the following is stated, presumably with the permission of those responsible for the content [which is keys mate Ian Fletcher];

About Us

We keep New Zealand’s secrets secret.

The Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) ensures the integrity and confidentiality of government information, and investigates and analyses cyber incidents against New Zealand’s critical infrastructure. The GCSB also collects foreign intelligence bearing on New Zealand’s interests, and assists other New Zealand government agencies to discharge their legislatively mandated functions.

Our Work

GCSB contributes to New Zealand’s national security by providing:

Information assurance and cyber security

Foreign intelligence

Cooperation and assistance to other New Zealand government agencies.

UK/USA Allies

New Zealand is a member of the UKUSA Agreement along with the four following agencies:

Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC)

Defence Signals Directorate (DSD), Australia

Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), United Kingdom

National Security Agency (NSA), United States

Ladies and Gentlemen of LF’s readership, where the fuck is the FBI mentioned as a “pardner”.  Under “our work” where does it state that we should be helping American investigators who operate only in America [the FBI] bring about extradition of a New Zealand businessman.

What New Zealanders probably don’t know is that its Prime Minister also heads the Intelligence and Security Committee pursuant to the provisions of the Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996.

John Key, probably the most dishonest politician in the Western World seemed to forget subsection 2 of section 6 of the Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996 when having his good mate and crooked confident Rebecca Kitteridge review what had occurred at the GCSB at the behest of himself and his cohort cabinet chief executive Andrew Kibblewhite.

9 April 2013

GCSB response to review of compliance

The Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) Director Ian Fletcher says that he accepts all of the recommendations about the GCSB in the Compliance Review by Rebecca Kitteridge, and is implementing them.

After finding out in September last year that the Bureau had unlawfully intercepted communications of two New Zealand residents, Ian Fletcher and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet Chief Executive Andrew Kibblewhite initiated the review.

Ms Kitteridge was seconded as Associate Director to undertake the review, which took into account the Bureau’s activities, systems and processes since 1 April 2003, when the GCSB Act took effect.

Mr Fletcher says, “This highlights a longstanding lack of good systems and processes in relation to compliance, as well as underlying organisational problems for GCSB.

“The advice we have recently received from the Solicitor-General is that there are difficulties in interpreting the legislation, and there is a risk that some long-standing practices of offering assistance to other agencies would not be found to be lawful.

“Within GCSB we are already following the report’s recommendations as quickly as we can. Many of the issues are longstanding and there are some that will take longer than others to address appropriately.

“The structure of the GCSB has been reviewed and the functions of senior management are being addressed. We are increasing the legal and compliance teams, with a new chief legal adviser in place, and recruitment of other legal staff is in hand.

“A new Associate Director to lead the internal change programme has been identified and an announcement will be made shortly on that role.

“I will be reporting publicly each quarter on our progress in delivering the review’s recommendations. You will be seeing and hearing more from us.

“Despite the systemic problems, I am proud of the commitment that staff have to their work, the organisation, and to protecting New Zealand and New Zealanders. The review notes that staff find the idea of unlawful activity, whether by error or deliberate act, abhorrent and they have a strong commitment to comply with the law. We take our responsibilities very seriously.

“We are working together to ensure the Government Communications Security Bureau is an organisation in which the public can again have trust and confidence.”

“I have thanked Rebecca Kitteridge for the clarity her review has brought to the organisation. The review has been extremely sensitive, for reasons ranging from national security and international relations through to individual staff welfare. It has been managed sensitively and we are grateful for that.”

A copy of the review is available from www.gcsb.govt.nz. The review references appendices that are legally privileged and highly classified, and these will not be made available.

What a load of tripe, but it is tripe that proves that Neazor should be immediately removed form his post for incompetence and partiality.  Clearly there are admissions that the GCSB acted illegally and that the publics trust is no longer there given such comments as this given what has occurred with Kim Dotcom;

“The advice we have recently received from the Solicitor-General is that there are difficulties in interpreting the legislation, and there is a risk that some long-standing practices of offering assistance to other agencies would not be found to be lawful.

The review notes that staff find the idea of unlawful activity, whether by error or deliberate act, abhorrent and they have a strong commitment to comply with the law. 

Now Ian Fletcher is not the brightest spark – in fact he is a dumb and dishonest little fuck who lies through his front teeth. Fletcher was alleged to have misled a Queensland parliamentary hearing on the timing of the renewal of the lease of the LA trade Office.

The leaked stories were an embarrassment to Anna Bligh and her state Labor government and in particular to Ian Fletcher, then director-general of the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, and his deputy, Mark Birmingham.

Both men were responsible for the supervision of Trade and Investment Queensland.

The leaks covered such topics as the extension of the lease for the Los Angeles trade office; $10,000 worth of supposedly ”Buy Local” T-shirts made in Bangladesh and planned trade trips of Bligh government ministers, including the premier.

Opposition questioning had focused on why the lease had been renewed when the Queensland government had decided to move its commissioner and office to Latin America.

As a result of a Wardill story, Fletcher was forced to correct his evidence before the committee.

In September 2011, an embarrassed Fletcher referred the leaks to the CMC for investigation. As a result of the Fletcher complaint the CMC had no choice but to consider the matter.

For more than a year the investigation dragged public servants before the star chamber and demanded they answer questions.

Fletcher’s complaint was an extraordinary overreaction and has resulted in the crime-fighting powers of the CMC being used to investigate a public-service leak. The cost to taxpayers is not yet known but would run into tens of thousands of dollars.  In short Ian Fletcher is a practiced liar now in charge of the GCSB.

In a recent speech at a security conference in Hamilton New Zealand [on 11 March 2013] this dishonest little toady had the incredible affront to say the following about the GCSB under his reign;

“Finally give government good feedback.  Government has responsibilities to set the legislative framework, to take care of its own information, to create the kind of international security partnerships which will support the business community and to generally create the conditions for business success.  The government needs to know how it is doing, where the gaps are and what needs to be done.  This sort of feedback is management information for policy makers.

And that’s really why I’m so pleased to be here to talk to you today: to continue to build the foundations for the strong partnership we are all going to need to deal with the threats of the cyber world effectively; so that we can really enjoys its benefits”

Well here’s some feedback Fletcher.

Firstly get rid of Neazor as he is fucking senile to the extent that he can’t remember your name, or the name of someone he has just been introduced too.

Secondly resign from your post for being responsible, along with John Key, for circumventing what should have been a full-blown inquiry by a competent and independent Inspector General into who the 88 New Zealanders were that were illegally surveilled by the GCSB.

Thirdly stop working with the fucking corrupt yanks on any matter unless it affects national security.

Fourthly stop the spying on New Zealanders that will still be continuing.

Fifthly do not support the bill designed to give John Key, and scumbags like him, more power.

and (6) commence an immediate inquiry into the covert evidence obtained by Nottingham in 2006 [and which LF reported] that included this revelation as to what the GCSB had been up to;

“For Christchurch Businessman Miles Dixon it hasn’t been an easy decision to release the information that police and the Governments GCSB spy agency have been altering public phone records, but he makes the point that any member of the public is vunerable to having their life destroyed in the wrong circumstances by what is effectively high level corruption.

And as for the man that was possibly a victim of a false allegation, and then a conspiracy to fabricate evidence in order to wrongfully convict the man and have him incarcerated.  Well he said this to Wishart;

“I went to jail” he says  “for something that I just didn’t do”

New Zealanders, realize this, you need to protect your rights to privacy as when these are extinguished by law – in reality what other right remains in place?

The internet is a technical democracy that the yanks and british invented and now cant control.

As for Neazor’s referring to Mr Nottingham as “Jason” (Hollywood’s “bloke with a chainsaw”), was that perhaps a “Freudian” albeit “dementia’ caused slip on Neazor QC’s part?

 

Related articles

• Inspector General of Intelligence and Security senile? An LF investigation answers the question in the affirmative. (laudafinem.com)
• Justice campaigner Dermot Nottingham chats to the New Zealand spook agency’s GCSB’s overseer ex justice Paul Neazor (laudafinem.com)
• Watchdog to oversee spy agencies appointed (radionz.co.nz)
• Spy watchdog switch ahead of hearings (nzherald.co.nz)
• New Zealand names new Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (terminalx.org)
• New Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security named (nzherald.co.nz)
• Judge appointed to oversee spy agencies (radionz.co.nz)
• GCSB hearing: New Zealanders need to know details (nzherald.co.nz)