×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

"Judicial Scandal" In Pirate Bay Case

kdawson posted about 6 years ago | from the revolving-door dept.

Government 250

dr_d_19 writes "Swedish media are reporting that Jim Keyzer, one of the police officers involved in investigating the Pirate Bay case, began working for Warner Bros. a few months after the investigation was finished. Peter Sunde, one of the men behind TPB, calls this a 'Judicial Scandal.' Quoting from TheLocal article: 'If the police officer is found to have entered into discussions with Warner Brothers before the end of the investigation, which took a year and a half to complete, it is possible that the prosecution will have to scrap its findings and start again.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

250 comments

Corruption? (5, Funny)

daliman (626662) | about 6 years ago | (#23117660)

So colour me surprised...

Re:Corruption? (3, Funny)

DanWS6 (1248650) | about 6 years ago | (#23117670)

What color is that?

Re:Corruption? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23117824)

Hot pink.

Re:Corruption? (5, Funny)

Llamahand (1275482) | about 6 years ago | (#23117868)

Obviously you never had the deluxe 65 color Crayola box as a kid.

Re:Corruption? (5, Funny)

DanWS6 (1248650) | about 6 years ago | (#23117990)

When I was a kid we were lucky to have the monochrome Crayola box. You kids and your fancy 65 colors.

Re:Corruption? (5, Funny)

wozzinator (1079319) | about 6 years ago | (#23118158)

Those boxes only came in binary numbers! 8,16,32,64,128!

Re:Corruption? (1)

iowannaski (766150) | about 6 years ago | (#23118714)

Those numbers are decimal*.

Perhaps you meant powers of two?

*if the values represented correspond to the Crayola quantities I am familiar with. The numbers could, of course, be anything octal or higher based.

Role reversal (4, Insightful)

thegnu (557446) | about 6 years ago | (#23118730)

It's interesting how often it turns out that the criminals are the ones with the moral high ground.

I was being harrassed for a long time by this cop, and he finally arrested me and roughed me up slightly. I went to the same gym as the local dealer, and he had a word with the police chief over their weekly brewskis, and the fucker left me alone after that.

Two suspicious stories about Warner in one day? (5, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | about 6 years ago | (#23117698)

Two different stories, with possible scandalous implications, both involving Time-Warner companies in one day? Where are the FBI RICO investigators when you need them?

Re:Two suspicious stories about Warner in one day? (5, Funny)

sm62704 (957197) | about 6 years ago | (#23117788)

Where are the FBI RICO investigators when you need them?

Not in Sweden!

Re:Two suspicious stories about Warner in one day? (-1, Troll)

sentientbrendan (316150) | about 6 years ago | (#23118564)

>>Where are the FBI RICO investigators when you need them?

>Not in Sweden!

Yes, they are in a *real* country.

Re:Two suspicious stories about Warner in one day? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23118616)

Spoken like a true American never been out of his parents basement.

Re:Two suspicious stories about Warner in one day? (2, Insightful)

tuxgeek (872962) | about 6 years ago | (#23117790)

Where are the FBI RICO investigators when you need them?

They're busy having coffee and donuts with Time Warner's talent scouts

Re:Two suspicious stories about Warner in one day? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23118084)

In Oregon, scaring the crap out of the RIAA with class action litigation based partly on RICO statutes.

FYI, note to self, do no attempt to litigate individuals that work as case support agents for the DOJ. It may not turn out how you would want.

Re:Two suspicious stories about Warner in one day? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23118190)

When they said they'd put more agents looking for terrorists, other units must have suffered.

Re:Two suspicious stories about Warner in one day? (5, Insightful)

laiquendi (688177) | about 6 years ago | (#23118748)

Where are the FBI RICO investigators when you need them?

They've recently accepted new jobs at Time-Warner.

To Quote Futurama.. (0)

neoform (551705) | about 6 years ago | (#23117704)

BAM!

Re:To Quote Futurama.. (4, Funny)

Adambomb (118938) | about 6 years ago | (#23117842)

You quoted [wikipedia.org] those quoting others [wikipedia.org] . Or possibly quoting those [wikipedia.org] quoting those quoting others

Re:To Quote Futurama.. (5, Funny)

Kamineko (851857) | about 6 years ago | (#23118130)

You quoted [wikipedia.org] those quoting others [wikipedia.org]. Or possibly quoting those [wikipedia.org] quoting those quoting others
QFT

Re:To Quote Futurama.. (1)

neoform (551705) | about 6 years ago | (#23118646)

You quoted those quoting others. Or possibly quoting those quoting those quoting others

The least you could've done is quoted me when responding. gosh.

Makes sense (1, Interesting)

notext (461158) | about 6 years ago | (#23117734)

If he did a good job finding or uncovering stuff, why wouldn't they want to hire him after its over?

Re:Makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23117794)

It's not over. He's supposed to be called as a wittnes later on.

Re:Makes sense (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23117814)

The problem is if he was given the offer during the investigation. That would most likely be considered a bribe, or at the very least conflict of interests under Swedish law, and hence it could trash the entire trial.

Re:Makes sense (1)

aeskdar (1136689) | about 6 years ago | (#23117860)

I didn't know that when you became an investigator or police officer that you where trying to capitalize on your duty to uphold the law. It sounds to me that corporations can just buy there own cops and write there own laws. IMO that makes this guy a piece of shit.

Re:Makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23117996)

I didn't know that when you became an investigator or police officer that you where trying to capitalize on your duty to uphold the law. It sounds to me that corporations can just buy there own cops and write there own laws. IMO that makes this guy a piece of shit.
so the police are not allowed to change careers? once a cop always a cop? as it happens the police provide the evidence the courts make the decisions... i can see no way in which this officer's choice can effect the trial outcome.

Re:Makes sense (5, Insightful)

What Would NPH Do (1274934) | about 6 years ago | (#23118102)

So you think it's proper that during an investigation that an officer is applying for jobs with one of the interested parties? That doesn't even remotely strike you as having any conflict of interest?

Re:Makes sense (3, Interesting)

geminidomino (614729) | about 6 years ago | (#23118152)

as it happens the police provide the evidence the courts make the decisions... i can see no way in which this officer's choice can effect the trial outcome.
You stated the way in which it can affect the outcome right before you said there was no way.

Said conflict of interest opens the witness to accusations of evidence corruption/planting, witness tampering, etc... If he's supposed to supply the evidence, and he has a vested interest in WB winning, then he can easily subvert the due process of law for his own gain by helping them.

Any defense attorney with an IQ above 20 would tear a case built on that evidence to shreds, assuming the judge is a moron and allows it in the first place.

Re:Makes sense (5, Informative)

innerweb (721995) | about 6 years ago | (#23118168)

Changing careers is one thing, changing jobs to someone who may benefit from *evidence* you gather in a trial against someone else is clearly a conflict of interest and unlawful in most western countries that I know of. You just do not do it. In many locales (not sure about his), he could be looking at jail time depending on what comes out about his involvement, time frames, actions, etc. Too bad we don't have restrictions against lawmakers doing the same thing.

InnerWeb

Re:Makes sense (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 6 years ago | (#23118682)

In many locales (not sure about his), he could be looking at jail time depending on what comes out about his involvement, time frames, actions, etc.
We can only hope so. There's nothing lower than a bent copper.

Re:Makes sense (1)

m.ducharme (1082683) | about 6 years ago | (#23118194)

There is a clear conflict of interest if a police officer, while conducting an investigation, entertains and later accepts a job offer with the alleged victim. There's nothing wrong with the cop taking the new job, but any work he did on the case is suspect and would be inadmissible in court. The prosecutor, if s/he knew about this, wouldn't likely even try to get the evidence entered. If the cop was key to the investigation, then all the evidence would be tainted. If the suspect evidence has already been heard, then the Trial would probably be declared a mis-trial, and the prosecution would have to start from scratch, with all new evidence (and remember, the TPB servers are no longer in Sweden).

Re:Makes sense (5, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | about 6 years ago | (#23118540)

I have to differ with you on one point.

"There's nothing wrong with the cop taking the new job..."

At least here in the U.S., the "revolving door" of government workers moving into industries they've had contact with previously is more than just common. It is corruptively common.

A huge portion of the higher-ups in the airport screening TSA was former air lines management and as a screener, I had witnessed lots of incidents where the requests and even demands of the airlines resulted in relaxing security of the airport, the flights and all the innocent uninvolved people were put into potential security compromise at the behest of the airlines.

The TSA and the FAA should be regulating the airlines, not the other way around. The same goes for anything the government is charged with regulating. When those connections exist, it should ALWAYS be considered improper.

Re:Makes sense (1)

aeskdar (1136689) | about 6 years ago | (#23118244)

I am not saying that a cop isn't able to make a change in career. My point is that that using his position as leverage isn't something that is in the public's interest. Maybe instead of investigating something that can be used towards furthering his career could be time best spent on investigating something that actually harms the public. I do not believe in Imaginary Property. And yes once a cop always a cop.

How about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23118630)

Would it be OK if Warner paid the cop for his sterling work in the case.

Would that be OK?

Re:Makes sense (1)

symes (835608) | about 6 years ago | (#23117862)

Unpopular tough this might be - I'd agree with this

If he did a good job finding or uncovering stuff, why wouldn't they want to hire him after its over?
anyhow - in any case that involves the police surely its expected that they talk to the parties involved? In fact it would seem a bit daft if there was no dialogue...

Re:Makes sense (1)

What Would NPH Do (1274934) | about 6 years ago | (#23117940)

So cops are supposed to be having employment dialogs with interested parties of an investigation? Yeah, nothing seems out of the ordinary in that...

Re:Makes sense (3, Funny)

symes (835608) | about 6 years ago | (#23118042)

If it was with the parties being prosecuted then, yes, that would be totally inappropriate. But Warner's and the police are surely on the same side here?

Re:Makes sense (4, Insightful)

mikael_j (106439) | about 6 years ago | (#23118166)

Aaah, but that is not how the police is supposed to be working. Their job is not "find evidence that supports the claims of the plaintiff", their job is "investigate the claims of the plaintiff and try to figure out what really happened". But from what I've seen of the US legal system I can understand that you're confused, after all, not calling a traffic cop "Sir" can land you in jail there...

/Mikael

Police work ovetime at scientology offices (1)

spineboy (22918) | about 6 years ago | (#23118620)

I also see a possible problem here. Scientologists routine have police work a second job, by patroling scientology compounds. Pay quite well too. Now of course if any protests/actions occur the police may feel an extra obligation to possibly protect their second paycheck.

Re:Makes sense (1)

What Would NPH Do (1274934) | about 6 years ago | (#23118208)

But Warner's and the police are surely on the same side here?
No one's saying that the police can't work with Warner Bros. The issue is with Warner Bros. possibly trying to influence the outcome of the investigation by bribing the cops. In almost any law enforcement agency this is considered improper conduct. Would you think an investigation that was done on you was impartial if afterwards you found out that the RIAA had offered them jobs during their investigation on you? I doubt it.

Re:Makes sense (4, Insightful)

m.ducharme (1082683) | about 6 years ago | (#23118248)

Well strictly speaking, they're not on the same side. The police and the prosecutor represent the State, not the victim. The State's interest is to see that justice is served for all the people, while the victim's interest is to get back at the party that wronged them. This is why civil and criminal law are separate branchs. (note that several hundred years of legal philosophy have been distilled down to 3 sentences, and thus I have grossly simplified the matter) IANAL...yet.

Re:Makes sense (1)

Jens Egon (947467) | about 6 years ago | (#23117880)

If Time/Warner bribe officers of the law by giving good jobs if they get the results Time/Warner wants, why wouldn't Sweden want to prosecute for bribing a government official?

If!

Re:Makes sense (5, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | about 6 years ago | (#23117910)

If he did a good job finding or uncovering stuff, why wouldn't they want to hire him after its over?
Okay, let's change the circumstances and see if you still think so nonchalantly about this.

Your [insert loved one here] gets accused of fraud by [insert evil corporation here]. They seize your [loved one]'s possessions and spead viscious lies all over the media and the internet about your [loved one]. Right after the investigation is over and your [loved one] is absolved in court (but maybe not in the court of public opinion), one of the investigating officers goes to work for [evil corporation].

Different story? Not really.
 

Re:Makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23118216)

how is this moderated "insightful"?! all this guy's done is spin a tale and inserted 'love' and 'evil' here and there to push the warners-bad, filesharers-angelic agenda. lets try a different version:

a child molester gets accused of murder by [insert name of pure and innocent child]. the police seize [murderers] possessions and notify the appropriate authorities, media that they are prosecuting [murderer]. leading officer goes to work with [well known organisation that takles child molestation and murder] so that he can concentrate on an area of work he finds rewarding and further his career.

Re:Makes sense (1)

What Would NPH Do (1274934) | about 6 years ago | (#23118406)

If they had influenced him during the evidence to tamper with evidence in order to bring about a wrongful conviction this would be just as much a conflict of interest as in the case being discussed. Sorry, just cause you try to use child molestation to make an emotional point it doesn't work on me. If there is any impropriety in the investigation the work of that officer should be thrown out.

Re:Makes sense (1)

notext (461158) | about 6 years ago | (#23118326)

If it was after his investigation and they were impressed with his work, I still see absolutely nothing wrong with it.

If you did work for a company and they were impressed and offered you a job with more pay after you were done would you not be interested?

The problem is the conjecture that it happened during the investigation. Yes, that would be something I would be opposed to.

Re:Makes sense (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23118554)

This is /. Most people here don't have jobs. Getting an allowance for taking out the garbage on Tuesday nights doesn't count.

Re:Makes sense (2, Insightful)

Dallas Caley (1262692) | about 6 years ago | (#23118178)

Because he's a friggin police officer! last i heard, Time warner wasn't in charge of maintaining the peace or fighting crime, so even if he was the best dang police officer they ever dealt with i still wouldn't see a reason to hire him. This smells like a payoff to me. and i hope Time Warner goes down

Re:Makes sense (1)

truthsearch (249536) | about 6 years ago | (#23118332)

Companies with as much copyright materials as Time Warner have to watch for and investigate copyright infringement. They're protecting their intellectual property by hiring an experienced police officer.

Would you buy stock in a public company that didn't protect its own property and a significant source of revenue?

Re:Makes sense (1)

Dallas Caley (1262692) | about 6 years ago | (#23118556)

I realize your right of course, i'm just venting my anger because i was recently forced to switch to their horrible sucky cable service. Heck i'd invest in Satan himself if he promised a good return of investment.

Re:Makes sense (1)

UncleTogie (1004853) | about 6 years ago | (#23118576)

They're protecting their intellectual property by hiring an experienced police officer.

That's odd. Most companies use lawyers to protect their "IP" in court. What's this guy supposed to do? Work with MediaSentry in "evidence gathering"?

Hmmm... (5, Interesting)

Myrcutio (1006333) | about 6 years ago | (#23117778)

Ironic that it takes a pirate to spot corruption in the legal system. Perhaps if we hired some fellows in fluffy shirts and a bottle of grog we could get something done about the RIAA.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

zappepcs (820751) | about 6 years ago | (#23117916)

I read that and got visions of Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life" movie...

I'm all on board. Will start practicing my adding machine skills to be sure to get hired before that building leaves port.

Glad it's not just me that read the summary and started laughing loudly at work.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 6 years ago | (#23118170)

Ironic that it takes a pirate to spot corruption in the legal system.
I don't think the pirates have spotted corruption.
More like they've induced it.

Consider that Sweden's legal underpinnings did not criminalize what TPB was doing, yet police raids and legal charges have ensued at the behest of copyright holders.

Since they couldn't quickly buy legislation, the copyright holders went out and purchased some official misconduct. Quite a shame.

So.. (3, Interesting)

Mister Whirly (964219) | about 6 years ago | (#23117866)

Does that mean he could bring information gained during the investigation to Time-Warner?? Is that legal even if he didn't start talking to them until after the investigation concluded??

Re:So.. (1)

KokorHekkus (986906) | about 6 years ago | (#23118394)

In Sweden you can bring what ever you want into court, there are no rules which stipulate the value of different types of evidence. The court makes an independent review of as what has been proved and not proved in each case. Obviously having a conflict of interest when it comes to evidentiary issues will weaken the prosecutors case.

For those who do read swedish: http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/evidence/evidence_swe_sv.htm [europa.eu]

Search for "fri bevisprövning".

How about trying the case on its merits? (0)

mumblestheclown (569987) | about 6 years ago | (#23117884)

I'm confused. Why should this have any bearing on the case whatsoever? The merits of the case are independent of whether the officer was thinking about a job with WB, is a fan of ABBA, or wears five inch heels.

Re:How about trying the case on its merits? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23118024)

Yeah, just like it's perfectly okay for a judge to handle the case of his own murdered mother.

Re:How about trying the case on its merits? (1)

mumblestheclown (569987) | about 6 years ago | (#23118292)

There is a difference between a judge and a police officer, you know. So, i'm going to mark your comment with a big FAIL.

Re:How about trying the case on its merits? (2, Insightful)

Jens Egon (947467) | about 6 years ago | (#23118054)

The police must appear to uphold justice. If it does not people will apply just as they see fit.

Swedes have guns too, you know.

Also, did you know that the most important indicator of long term economic success is trust.

What do you think happens to trust if people believe/suspect that justice is for sale in the marketplace?

Re:How about trying the case on its merits? (1)

BadMrMojo (767184) | about 6 years ago | (#23118150)

... Because the merits of the case are determined by the information brought forth by the investigators and a conflict of interest could very clearly have a profound effect on the nature of that information?

Just a wild theory. Call me crazy.

Re:How about trying the case on its merits? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23118176)

Since you need is spelled out, what could have happened is WB approached him with an expression of interest in hiring him since he was doing such "good work" during the investigation. He might have interpreted that to imply that if the results were good enough he would benefit, and then he may have "managed" evidence and/or interpretations of evidence to the benefit of WB. This is what we call in America reasonable doubt in criminal proceedings and would call into question the evidence in civil courts rendering a preponderance of evidence impossible.

Re:How about trying the case on its merits? (-1)

mumblestheclown (569987) | about 6 years ago | (#23118382)

Let's assume for a moment that he managed evidence and/or interpretations to the benefit of WB. The defense will question it and provide reasonable counterarguments. The judge will oversee it. remember, folks - we're talking about a police officer here, not a judge. we expect bit players like police officers to have their own grudges, motivations, and the like. that's the whole point there is a court at all!

as for your contention that the mere idea that the police officer had a conflict of interest in and of itself is "reasonable doubt" is laughable, and please don't play lawyer in throwing about terms like "preponderance of evidence" when you clearly have the bar for reasonable doubt so poorly misread. To wit, there have been hundreds of murder cases (that is - criminal cases - a much tougher standard!) where the defendants have raised some theoretical conflict of interest (the accused is white - the officer is black, etc) and nowhere has this been seen as the absolute block against fair legal treatment (though it can be considered).

Re:How about trying the case on its merits? (4, Informative)

Tuoqui (1091447) | about 6 years ago | (#23118384)

In plain english...

If it looks like the cop doing the investigating is on the take, its not unreasonable he'd suppress evidence that proves innocence while collecting all evidence that determines guilt. Sorta like how the police officer was said to have planted the bloody glove on OJ's property. It makes it difficult to get a guilty verdict so the case would either be thrown out directly or through the Jury bringing reasonable doubt into the equation.

Re:How about trying the case on its merits? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23118586)

hey, no cheap shots. J. Edgar Hoover was a good agent, no matter what clothes he chose to wear at home!

Conflicts of interests (5, Insightful)

Marcion (876801) | about 6 years ago | (#23117912)

A new multi-national nobility (/mafia) who could fit into the average conference venue, are trying to obtain the wealth and power of the whole world. To do this they are willing subvert all governmental and non-governmental institutions into following the cause of this new monarchy.

The particular aim is to stop any competition or checks and balances that might restrain the growth of their power. Conflicts of interests and corruption don't matter to them, they have their own values and own replacement values over the traditional Judeo-Christian values that built the modern world.

So a police follows old media companies rather than the good of society. To him he feels no shame because he does not believe in democracy, he believes in "Intellectual Property", a doctrine not unlike the divine right of kings. Like Tudor monarchs gave out monopolies to the nobility and enforced them with the sword, so does the new nobility.

If we really lived in a democracy, then filesharing would be legal, because more people fileshare than vote for the government [commandline.org.uk] .

Re:Conflicts of interests (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23118154)

What a load of utter bullshit. You sir are a fucking moron.

Re:Conflicts of interests (5, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | about 6 years ago | (#23118240)

they have their own values and own replacement values over the traditional Judeo-Christian values that built the modern world.
Really? Think so, huh?

In the East, Judeo-Christianity has never had much of an influence on society. The strongest moral and ethical influences in the East come from various forms Buddhism and Hinduism, along with Shinto and other Eastern philosophies.

In the West, most of what some might call "Christian values" or "Christian ethics" actually have their roots in Greco-Roman pagan thought. St. Augustine, Sir Thomas More, and many other shapers of modern 'Christian values' were all essentially platonists (or more precisely, neoplatonists [wikipedia.org] ) In fact, one could argue that there is really no such thing as 'Judeo-Christian values' and that even many of the moralistic concepts of Judaism came straight out of another conetmporary religion, Zorastrianism.

Oh, well, mod me off topic.

Re:Conflicts of interests (2, Interesting)

SkOink (212592) | about 6 years ago | (#23118434)

Except not really - all the RIAA and MPAA really do is supply entertainment. Movies, music, these things are just luxuries. If the entire recording industry and every since CD in the world disappeared tomorrow, my life wouldn't really be very different. This is also true for movies and TV (although TV stations aren't really getting into this whole anti-piracy thing). Heck, my life might even be better! I'd have less reason to put off doing the things I need to do and more reason to do the things I want to do.

You don't like the RIAA? Just stop listening to music! It's not a very big deal really. I can't figure out where or why we as a society decided that we had to be surrounded by constant entertainment 24/7.

Re:Conflicts of interests (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23118532)

Hmm, so following that logic (since I assume you mean the sharing of illegal (copyrighted, without authorization to share) files when you refer to "filesharing would be legal"), if more people committed murder than voted for the government, murder would be legal in a "real democracy". Filesharing itself isn't illegal... it's the content some people choose to share that is. Just like driving home from the store with fried chicken isn't illegal, but driving with cocaine is. That doesn't make cars illegal.

Little too convinient (1)

icsx (1107185) | about 6 years ago | (#23117930)

How about that, hired _before_ the trial which will decide if the material at hand which the police found out was enough for convictions. I would have hired _after_ the trial. MPAA is again underestimating the internet - stuff like this you can't just put a locker and keep it hidden.

Re:Little too convinient (5, Funny)

pipatron (966506) | about 6 years ago | (#23118066)

Well, he could have kept it a secret for a little longer if he chose too, since it was him that wrote it on his own facebook page...

What do they say about public office.... (2, Insightful)

ruin20 (1242396) | about 6 years ago | (#23117938)

Avoid impropriety and the appearance there of? Oh and the guy still has more testimony to give in court. Unbiased witness anyone?

scandal, in my judicial system? (2, Funny)

erotic_pie (796522) | about 6 years ago | (#23118046)

scandal, in MY judicial system?

it's more likely then you think

Re:scandal, in my judicial system? (4, Interesting)

Corpuscavernosa (996139) | about 6 years ago | (#23118294)

Honestly it is more likely than you think. In northern Colorado, there was a guy who spent 10 years in the pokey after being convicted of murder. Long story short, he was recently acquitted after it was discovered that police and DAs actively burned/destroyed exculpatory evidence. The great twist is that the DAs who prosecuted the case are now judges in the same county. The cops are cheifs of police in neighboring counties. All this was brought to light and NOTHING happened to them. There was public outcry for disbarment and removal. Nothing happened. Everything was swept under the rug.

There is an immigration judge out here who has all but said that he became a judge so he could help keep immigrants out of this country. Judges shouldn't have an agenda.

Slightly off topic I realize, but my main point is that little things like this happen all the time, all around the country and world. They will continue to happen as well and honestly, there doesn't seem to be a hell of a lot that can be done about it.

The US Federal judges seem to be the best and most impartial. They are paid well and have liftime appointments, thus they don't have to make decisions in order to appease a public and keep their office. They can decide what is right.

The drawback is that it takes (usually) huge amounts of resources to select these people. Local governments don't have that kind of time/money.

I'd be curious to know what the judicial appointment/election status is in this case.

Re:scandal, in my judicial system?FOLLOW THE LAW (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | about 6 years ago | (#23118442)

There is an immigration judge out here who has all but said that he became a judge so he could help keep immigrants out of this country. Judges shouldn't have an agenda.

If the law allows barring them (you don't distinguish if we're speaking of illegal, or legal, immigrants here), and other judges aren't following the law as written (and how likely is that?) then he may well have reason to want to be a judge that others of us feel we need more of.

Btw, you don't just become a judge. You don't wake up one morning and decide, "I want to be a judge now for the rest of my life. I should be starting in my new position by this afternoon at the latest."

Re:scandal, in my judicial system?FOLLOW THE LAW (1)

Corpuscavernosa (996139) | about 6 years ago | (#23118658)

I realize you don't just become a judge, but you take very deliberate steps in your career in hopes that an appoinment will happen. You don't just become a judge without trying.

My point is that impartiality is essential in that role. A judge shouldn't bring his personal prejudices to the bench. That's what attorneys are for. Lots of judges get overturned on appeal because of their bias in lower court rulings. And this is also sometimes why we have scandals at all court levels.

Clearly you're not involved in the court process or you'd see what a problem this is. Also I think we're getting way off topic here so for karma's sake, we'd better realign. I can feel an immigration stance argument coming on. ;)

Surprised? (3, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | about 6 years ago | (#23118050)

If you're surprised that Big Media appears to have manipulated the judicial process of case against The Pirate Bay, please raise your hand. Anyone? Anyone? Yeah. That's what I thought. Not surprised in the least.

More profitable to do this as a Senator (1)

sadwings (1195959) | about 6 years ago | (#23118224)

He should have been a Senator in the pocket of the Pharmaceutical Lobbyists. He could have had more money and nobody would have blinked an eye.

Re:More profitable to do this as a Senator (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23118278)

"He should have been a Senator in the pocket of the Pharmaceutical Lobbyists. He could have had more money and nobody would have blinked an eye."

Too crowded in there already.

Got to look for new sources of junkets with LasVegas showgirls.

Re:More profitable to do this as a Senator (1)

sm62704 (957197) | about 6 years ago | (#23118454)

He should have been a Senator in the pocket of the Pharmaceutical Lobbyists. [slashdot.org] He could have had more money and nobody would have blinked an eye. [slashdot.org]

Dude, you have to stop reading my journals, it's affecting your comment posting! ;)

-mcgrew

Wishful Thinking (1)

ThirdPrize (938147) | about 6 years ago | (#23118330)

on TPBs front if you ask me. Expect all sort of SCO blathering from them in an effort not to get sued.

Oh it gets better (5, Interesting)

BlueParrot (965239) | about 6 years ago | (#23118432)

Apparently the big media's puppet organisation, "Antipiratbyrån", in Sweden has done the same.

For those who understand Swedish:
http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/artikel_1149973.svd [www.svd.se]

In all this mess lets have a look at the scores:

RIAA and the prosecution:
"Ministerstyre" (roughly speaking illegal manipulation of MPs )
Denial of service attacks
Illegal search and confiscation of private property
Bribing police investigators

TPB:
Assistance to commit copyright infringement ( which probably isn't even illegal in Sweden ).

Nice one.

Nothing here, move along. (1, Insightful)

victim (30647) | about 6 years ago | (#23118468)

You are reading an article built only of unfounded speculation by two sources, a defendant and his lawyer. They allege, while staying just legally clear of slander, that the officer miscarried justice in exchange for a payoff. Read again and see if there are any facts to support that.

The missing bits of article prevent this from being news:
  • No respected, independent person with a knowledge of Swedish law calls it a scandal.
  • The time frame is deliberately vague.
  • There is no evidence that the officer is being overpaid for his duties at WB.
  • There is no discussion of his role in the case. "involved" could mean anything. Presumably it is more than crowd control since he is being called to testify, but was he a decider or a witness.

Maybe some of these elements will appear over time, and then it can be a scandal, until then it is a desperate defense attempting to confuse an issue.

Re:Nothing here, move along. (2, Insightful)

scuba0 (950343) | about 6 years ago | (#23118788)

Well considering the fact that they are trying to cover/ignore the fact that it even happened is enough to call it a scandal. Without this information before the trial, the prosecution could have gotten away with it. The prosecuting lawyer said "no worries, I trust them" and didn't care more about it. Where is this not a scandal for the justice system. How much can the MAFIAA buy before anyone cares?

Yeah (-1, Flamebait)

sentientbrendan (316150) | about 6 years ago | (#23118550)

I mean, that cop could have faked all the evidence of *pirated content* being available on pirate bay.

This is obviously a conspiracy! Just like OJ...

You know what the thing is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23118746)

...that bothers me the most about The Pirate Bay?

It's not like, as with many Slashdotters, they operate under the guise that what they're doing is morally right.

It's more that they delight in the fact that what they're doing is wrong, and that no one can do anything about it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...