Conspiracy 101; Dotcom channels Peters


We know that Winston Peters visited Kim Dotcom's rental house in Coatesville last year. We now know the reason; Peters was taking the Large German Gentleman through a crash course in Conspiracy 101.

The Herald reports on Dotcom's latest fantasy:

Kim Dotcom is challenging government minister Jonathan Coleman to explain why he didn't block his application for residency after learning of an FBI investigation into him.
Dotcom claims Immigration officials broke their own rules to grant him residency in a ploy to lure him to New Zealand so the FBI would have an easier time of extraditing him on criminal copyright charges.
There were denials from the Government yesterday of interference in Dotcom's residency after emails between SIS agents in 2010 cited "political pressure to process this case". The claim was made 90 minutes before the spy agency lifted its objection to the tycoon's residency.
Dotcom said it was hard to believe then-Immigration Minister Jonathan Coleman was told of the FBI investigation on October 28, 2010 - the day his residency was decided - and then didn't move to block it.
"Why in the world with that knowledge would the Minister of Immigration not intervene and say this is going to be a bad look for us knowing there is an investigation and a desire to extradite.
[They would say] we can't give this guy residency just because of the money ..."
He claims a decision to work with the US to get him into New Zealand for easier extradition was behind the decision.
Dotcom said his bid for residency should have failed because of Immigration NZ rules which automatically put applications on hold for six months if those seeking entry are under "investigation".

This is fanciful stuff from Dotcom, and from his biographer David Fisher who moonlights as an "independent" NZ Herald journalist. 

It was Dotcom who applied for New Zealand residence, via his agent David Cooper from Malcolm Pacific, the country's leading immigration consultancy. 

And it was Mr Cooper who convinced Immigration New Zealand to overlook pending convictions for share-trading offences in Hong Kong.

But most significantly, it was Mr Cooper delivering ultimatums to Immigration New Zealand on behalf of his client as 3News reported on 14 March 2012:



Internet tycoon Kim Dotcom threatened to withdraw his residency application and take his money elsewhere unless New Zealand immigration authorities met his deadline, new documents reveal.
Dotcom, who faces internet piracy charges in the United States over his file-sharing website Megaupload, was granted New Zealand residency in 2010 in exchange for investing $10 million in New Zealand under the Immigration Plus category.
Documents released to the Associated Press show Dotcom set a deadline for immigration officials to approve his application, with a threat that he would otherwise move to Australia or Canada.
On October 26, immigration manager Gareth Grigg sent a memo to a colleague, saying he had been advised by Dotcom's immigration agent David Cooper that "Mr Dotcom wants a decision on his application by 1 November 2010 or he will walk away".
Despite Mr Grigg's warning that "Mr Dotcom may be seen to be controlling the processing of his application" or receiving special treatment, Dotcom's residency was approved on November 1.

For Dotcom to now claim that he was lured here under false pretences is so bizarre it defies belief. And he is essentially arguing that he ought not have been approved for residence in the first place; a point with which we find agreement!

Perhaps the easiest way forward now would be for the Immigration New Zealand to admit that Dotcom ought not have been granted residence, revoke his residence permit, and serve him with a removal notice. If Dotcom doesn't think that he should have been given residence in the first place, then he would have no grounds to appeal the revocation!

In the meantime, Dotcom should leave the conspiracy theories to Winston Peters. And David Fisher should stick to writing Dotcom's publicity material, instead of pretending to present a neutral, accurate version of events to readers.
◄ New Posts Older Posts ►