Friday, January 24, 2020

Meng Wanzhou Extradition Update - Defense says 'It's unique .. it's a pose'

© Jonathan Hayward\THE CANADIAN PRESS Meng Wanzhou, chief financial officer of Huawei, leaves her home to go to B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver, Wednesday, January 22, 2020. Wanzhou is in court for hearings over an American request to extradite the executive of the Chinese telecom giant Huawei on fraud charge

Yesterday the Defense in the Meng Wanzhou Extradition case completed it's presentation in a Vancouver court house.  The following report originally from CBC describes the arguments made by the Defense.  I have copied the report in its entirety.  Please read and I will have thoughts and comments to follow:


Right needs to be done': Meng Wanzhou's lawyers make final pitch to judge 

A lawyer for Meng Wanzhou made a final pitch against extradition Thursday to the B.C. Supreme Court judge tasked with weighing the Huawei executive's fate.

But Richard Peck told Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes that Meng's defence team was asking for more than just a legal victory.

"This is the kind of case that tests our system," Peck said as he wrapped up his arguments.

"It's not so much for us a matter of standing here and saying we want to see justice done. We say right needs to be done."

Holmes concluded the four-day hearing by thanking both defence and Crown lawyers for their work and reserving her decision for a later date.

She gave no indication as to how long it might take.
Accused of lying to bank

Meng was arrested at Vancouver's airport on Dec. 1, 2018, on a stopover from Hong Kong to a conference in Argentina.

The United States wants Meng extradited for allegedly lying to HSBC about Huawei's control of a company accused of attempting to sell computer equipment to an Iranian telecommunications company.

American prosecutors argue the bank put itself at risk of fines, prosecution and the loss of reputation by relying on Meng's alleged lie to continue providing finance to the Chinese telecommunications giant.

Meng is living under house arrest in one of two multi-million dollar homes she owns in Vancouver.

As part of a $10 million bail agreement, she wears a GPS monitoring bracelet on her left ankle and is trailed everywhere by a team of security guards.

This week's hearing — which marked the first formal stage of the extradition process — was held to determine if Meng's alleged conduct would amount to a crime if it had happened in Canada at the time the U.S. gave Canada the authority to proceed with the extradition: the principle of so-called "double criminality."
'This is an oxymoron'

Meng's lawyers spent the first two days arguing that the whole case comes down to economic sanctions the U.S. re-imposed against Iran in 2018 when it left an international deal meant to stall the Islamic republic's nuclear ambitions.

Canada doesn't have those same sanctions and so, the defence claims, Meng's alleged lies would be harmless north of the border because a bank in Canada wouldn't risk anything by dealing with a company that did business in Iran.
The Crown then spent half a day arguing the case was one of fraud, plain and simple, and that the issue of sanctions was essentially a red herring.

Crown lawyer Robert Frater said the central elements of fraud are a misrepresentation resulting in risk of loss.

And if the existence of foreign sanctions came into Holmes' decision, he said it should be as a means to understand the context of the risks that HSBC would be taking by providing finance to a company on the wrong side of U.S. law.

Peck and co-counsel Scott Fenton provided a brief reply to the Crown's arguments Thursday, taking issue with Frater's contention that fraud and risk of deprivation could still occur "where there is no possibility of loss."
"This is an oxymoron," Fenton told the judge. "No possibility of risk means no loss at all."

They also told Holmes that she could consider the value of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in making her decision — a response to the Crown's contention that weighing concerns about values associated with sanctions law was a concern for the minister of justice, not a B.C. Supreme Court judge.
'It's unique ..
it's a pose'

Both the Crown and the defence say the case is unique. But as to why, they disagree.

"It's unique because in our submission, it's a pose," Peck told Holmes.

"It is a pose or posture where fraud is being tendered as the essence [of the alleged conduct] and, in fact, sanctions busting or sanctions violations is the essence ... It's unique because our standards have changed with respect to this very issue. It's extraordinary in that sense."

Holmes allowed Meng to move out of the prisoner's dock in the high-security courtroom where the hearing was held so that she could sit alongside her counsel and follow the arguments through a translator.

If Holmes decides the bar of double-criminality is not met, then the extradition proceedings will come to an end and Meng would be free to return to China, barring an appeal.

But if the Crown is successful, further court dates have been set in June for Meng to argue that she is being used as a political pawn and that her rights were violated at the time of her detention and arrest.


Greencrow says:  I have copied the news report in its entirety because it clearly sets out why this case is so important for Canada.  As I've blogged about for many years now, Canada has endured a series of mortal wounds to its institutions, particularly its system of justice.  There have been at least half a dozen "travesties of justice' that have wended their way through our courts...and the feds have done absolutely nothing about it.  The Nuttall/Korody Travesty of Justice comes readily to mind but there have been many others, including the Omar Khadr Travesty of Justice and several other similar pillorying of ethnic groups to serve the Usraeli military industrial complex.

In the case at hand I've bolded and highlighted the paragraphs above that I believe show what's going on here.  For simplicity sake I will number the issues:

1.  As lawyer Richard Peck says there is a distinguishment to be made between justice and "right".  They used to be more or less the same...not any more. Justice has been trampled on so heavily in Canada in recent years that now lawyers are forced to dig down deeper through the history of civilization on this earth to draw upon the concept of "right".  This is the principle that used to be the foundation of law...prior to all the travesties.  It's simply not "right" that one individual (Meng) should bear the personal brunt of the Globalists' international thuggery.

2.  Canadian sovereignty is put at risk [some would argue deliberately] by USrael's bullying of Canada to do its "dirty work" in arresting and holding Meng.  Simply put, are Canada's own laws (regarding what nations Canada does and does not have sanctions on) given more weight in our justice system...or are USrael's political hegemonic vagaries to be put in priority to our own laws.

3. The fact of the matter is that there was no crime committed by Meng. Canada does not have sanctions against Iran so the "double criminality" fails. More importantly, the "fraud" argument has no basis in fact--because the bank did not incur even a risk of loss by anything that Meng did or said in Canada. The Defense correctly says about the "Crown"s case that: 'It's unique .. it's a pose'. The USraelis have forced the Canadian "Crown" to present a fraudulent case to the judge...Perhaps that was their goal all the heart out of the Canadian justice system...prior to a North American which time Canadians will be forced to exist under the American so-called "justice system" which is currently on view for the world to see during the "Impeachment fraud/distraction" going on in Washington.

4.  The most interesting argument made by the "Crown" [ironically representing those who would replace it with a republic if they could [NAU] is that the courts are not even the correct forum for this issue to be considered.  The "Crown" makes the argument that this issue should in fact be decided by...wait for it...a politician:

….the Crown's contention that weighing concerns about values associated with sanctions law was a concern for the minister of justice, not a B.C. Supreme Court judge.
'It's unique .. it's a pose'..."

Now, wouldn't they just love to move the responsibility for this decision to one politician--who can easily be demoted [like the former Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould] should s/he step out of line.  The fact that the decision rests with a judge who cannot [so far, at least] be fired for making the wrong decision...really sticks in the monster's Satanic craw.

The decision may not be handed down until next April.  Stay tuned for further developments in this latest Canadian "travesty of justice" see whether an uncorrupted judge pulls Canada's ass out of the fire once again.


Anonymous said...

I wanna be her boytoy

Anonymous said...

We have a coward for a prime minister. We have a deputy PM who is an idealogue. The whole regime in Ottawa is divorced from reality.

And Ms Meng's lawyer is asking for the right thing?

Not even 20 years ago would this be possible. Only the dauphin's father showed any leadership in that regard, and he himself was an exceptionally poor leader.

Tired of sociopaths, psychopaths and media darlings calling this square dance we are in.

Really really tired of getting stuck with the bill every time this dysfunctional excuse for a government does something.

/rant mode off

greencrow said...

Hi Anonymous:

"We have a coward for a prime minister..."

You are too kind. A coward at least has an excuse...s/he's afraid.

Le Dauphin is very intentional in his corrupt behaviour.