Canada arrests Huawei’s global chief financial officer in Vancouver

Here is more on yesterday's hearing in Vancouver.
The crown maintained its position that they didn't search Meng's phones. Apparently they said that the US FBI no longer even wants the phones.
The Crown has argued that the border officers were just doing their job in determining if Meng was admissible to Canada. They say no one has ever actually searched the phones, which the FBI no longer even want.
It is an interesting question whether the FBI need the phone if they have a way of getting into any backups which run on Apple's cloud servers, now that they have Meng's passwords. That line of questioning however does not appear in the news story.

The US FBI had apparently asked the Canadian police and border officials to put the phones in special bags which would block outside signals to prevent them form being wiped remotely. The judge kept going back to the phones, asking why the customs officials put the phones in the bags if they claim they were operating independently of the US FBI? And if they demanded the passwords from Meng, why didn't they then use them to search her phones and PC?
But as she considered the facts, Holmes kept returning to the phones.

If the FBI didn't ask the CBSA to seize them, and the CBSA officers were supposedly acting independently, why were the Mylar bags used?

And if the border agents claim that they got the passcodes as part of the process of examining Meng's goods for evidence of criminality, why didn't they search them?

"We're in a situation where we're being asked to draw inferences from absences," Holmes told Gibb-Carsley.

"Since we're in the land of inferences because of the absence of evidence ... we have the fact that the passcodes were given along with the devices that CBSA took on the jetway and put in Mylar bags, and we have the fact that the U.S. request was for exactly that."
The judge seems to find the crown's story to be rather fishy. The big question is whether it is fishy enough.
 
The judge seems to find the crown's story to be rather fishy. The big question is whether it is fishy enough.
A cynical person might almost think that the extradition judge has been told to 'make it look good'. The information concerning usage rights of Huawei patents for US companies, as part of a possible larger trade arrangement, makes the whole thing a bit smelly. Having a hostage held in a neutral place is very convenient.
 
A cynical person might almost think that the extradition judge has been told to 'make it look good'. The information concerning usage rights of Huawei patents for US companies, as part of a possible larger trade arrangement, makes the whole thing a bit smelly. Having a hostage held in a neutral place is very convenient.
I think the PRC are currently waiting for confirmation that Canada actually is a neutral place.
 
A cynical person might almost think that the extradition judge has been told to 'make it look good'. The information concerning usage rights of Huawei patents for US companies, as part of a possible larger trade arrangement, makes the whole thing a bit smelly. Having a hostage held in a neutral place is very convenient.
A really cynical person might think that the police or customs were told to make a mess of things to ensure the case gets tossed out and the whole problem goes away from Canada's perspective. I'm not endorsing that theory, but if you want to look for the man behind the scenes pulling strings then there are multiple options available.

Or perhaps the police and customs are just used to bending the rules in order to be able to do whatever they want, and aren't used to dealing with someone who has enough money to be able to hire the lawyers who can do something about it.

Either way I suspect there are a number of people in the PMO and Foreign Affairs who will be pleased with any outcome which results in Meng being sent back to China ASAP.
 
And things get murkier still as Meng's lawyers have accused the RCMP of violating the Extradition Act by sharing information about Meng's phone with the US FBI.
Meng Wanzhou's legal team levelled a potentially explosive allegation against the RCMP on Thursday, accusing officers of sharing technical information about the Huawei executive's phone with the FBI, in violation of the Extradition Act.
If true, then this would be a "unlawful" attempt to circumvent due legal process. Normally the US would have to go through either a judge or international treaty in order to get this information. The information consisted of serial numbers and SIM card information.
If proven true, defence lawyer Scott Fenton said the provision to U.S. authorities of details including serial numbers and SIM card information would mark an "unlawful" attempt by the agencies to do an end-run around the legal process. (...)

Fenton said the FBI would normally have to go through a judge or an international treaty to get Meng's phone details.
This information is considered to be very significant, as the US can use it to get details about phone calls, text messages, and Meng's movements.
"It's very significant, because U.S. law enforcement, as part of their tool kit, can make significant use of this technical information regarding electronic devices," he told Holmes.

(...) He claimed investigators could have already used the technical information to determine details about calls, text messages and Meng's movements.

"This is not meaningless information," Fenton told Holmes.

"It's the use of the CBSA's powers to gather information for the RCMP as requested ... and now — today — we know that significant information was sent to the FBI."
Meng's lawyers went though notes and emails from the RCMP which they said showed "significant evidence sharing".
And as Meng's lawyers combed through notes and emails of RCMP officers provided this week by the Crown, he said they found documents to suggest "significant evidence sharing."
The Crown of course are denying everything. What I find interesting though is that their denials seem to be very specific, leaving open the possibility that the information passed through a different channel than the one they specified in their denial.
But lawyers for Canada's attorney general insisted that the RCMP had not shared information from Meng's electronic devices with the FBI.

Crown attorney Robert Frater said Fenton's accusation was wrong.

"We can show that in fact, it was not shared with the FBI," he told Holmes.
The Crown's denials are based on emails from the RCMP who said they didn't do it, not on actual testimony. Meng's defence naturally pointed out that this amounts to hearsay, not evidence and questioned the Crown's claims.
The Crown lawyers spent the lunch hour gathering emails from RCMP officers who said they had not sent the phone details to the FBI.

But Fenton called the emails hearsay and said the defence team has "grave concerns" the information in them was not correct.
This stage of the hearing process was supposed to end this week, but now the judge has ordered the Crown to produce affidavits regarding whether this took place.
The allegation threw a wrench into a hearing that was supposed to end this week, as B.C. Supreme Court Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes instead directed Crown attorneys to produce affidavits they claim will prove the information sharing didn't happen.
The Crown now has a week to produce affidavits. Meng's lawyers will then have a week to determine if they want to question any of the RCMP further. After that the judge will then decide whether to grant Meng's lawyer's request for more records to look for still more evidence.
That left Holmes with a conundrum.

She was supposed to determine whether there was "an air of reality" to the defence's conspiracy allegations but didn't want to appear to be putting an "artificial" stop to the introduction of new evidence.

In the end, she issued an order for "affidavits based on personal knowledge attaching any relevant records relating to the sharing of information with the FBI from Ms. Meng's electronic devices" from six RCMP officers.

The Crown has until next Wednesday to produce those records, after which Meng's lawyers have a week to determine if they will need to cross-examine any of the officers further.

Holmes won't be able to reach a decision in relation to the request for more records until that process is over.
 
The extradition trial for Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou has started up again. The crown lawyers representing the extradition case are arguing that the essence of the case is fraud, while the defence is arguing the essence is US sanctions against Iran.
'Essence' of Meng Wanzhou's alleged crime is fraud — not sanctions violation, Crown says

This detail matters, because without being able to show a charge which would be illegal in Canada, the case for extradition falls apart. This is the principle known as double criminality.
Meng Wanzhou may be accused of violating sanctions against Iran, but lawyers for the Crown say the essence of the charges against the Huawei chief financial officer is fraud.

And that's an offence in both the United States and Canada.
Her lawyers provided their arguments on double criminality in late November.

They claim that because Canada didn't have the same sanctions against Iran at the time the extradition warrant against Meng was sworn, her alleged actions couldn't have led to any offence if they had occurred in Canada.
If the crown's lawyers get past the double criminality issue, the next hurdle in several months time is that Meng's lawyers will argue that she is being used as a pawn in trade negotiations between the US and China. They have statements from US president Trump to base this on.
The hearing on double criminality will be followed — if warranted — by a hearing in June during which Meng's lawyers plan to argue that she was a victim of a conspiracy between Canadian and American authorities to violate her rights.

They will also argue that she's being used as a political pawn, citing comments by U.S. President Donald Trump that he would be willing to intervene in Meng's case, if it could secure a better trade deal with China.
PM Trudeau has recently said that the US should not sign a trade agreement with China that does not cover both Meng and the two Canadians under arrest in China.
In recent weeks, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appeared to bolster their case by telling the hosts of a Quebec TV station the U.S. "should not sign a final and complete agreement with China that does not settle the question of Meng Wanzhou" and two Canadians arrested in China in the week after her detention.
 
The Meng Wanzhou extradition case is back in court. The issue being addressed in this week's appearances has to do with "dual criminality". That is, the crown must show that what Meng is accused of is a crime in Canada in order to be extradited to the US.
Meng Wanzhou case is about the U.S. wanting Canada to enforce sanctions it rejects, defence says
Meng Wanzhou extradition case back in court for 2nd day on 'double criminality' test

The US has tried to get around this by constructing their case as being fraud, rather than as a sanctions case. They have done this by a long chain of arguments centring on whether Meng told certain foreign (non-US) banks that Huawei was doing business in Iran. This is the case the crown is presenting on court.

Meng's lawyers say that the fraud charges are a "facade" for the sanctions charges, and as such do not meet the "dual criminality" standard.

If the dual criminality standard is not met, then Meng will be free to leave Canada. If however the judge decides that it is, then the trial goes on with more hearings in June over abuse of process issues.

The decision on "dual criminality" will hinge on technicalities, and so could easily go either way.
 
It looks as ms.Meng could spend 2 years or even more in detention in Canada, while she apparently didn't violate any Canadian law. It is how democracy (or 'democracy') works.
Ambassador of Canada to the United States Kirsten Hillman ... said, “The process in our courts to proceed with the extradition hearing to determine whether or not Ms. Meng will be extradited pursuant to the U.S. request is under way. We expect it to continue on for several months, in accordance with our judicial process.”
Could Canadian justice (or 'justice'?) keep ms.Meng in detention 3, 5, 10, 15 years? Why not. There no any time limits.
 
It looks as ms.Meng could spend 2 years or even more in detention in Canada, while she apparently didn't violate any Canadian law. It is how democracy (or 'democracy') works.

Could Canadian justice (or 'justice'?) keep ms.Meng in detention 3, 5, 10, 15 years? Why not. There no any time limits.
At the moment people seem to have bigger things to worry about.

How are things going in your area by the way?
 
It looks as ms.Meng could spend 2 years or even more in detention in Canada, while she apparently didn't violate any Canadian law. It is how democracy (or 'democracy') works.
It’s nothing to do with democracy, it’s international collaboration so that criminals don’t benefit purely from geographical boundaries.

It all remains subject to criteria so you don’t just handover anyone to another country on any charge.

As opposed to Russia where you don’t hand over anyone to face justice and make them TV stars when it’s good for image and disappear when it’s not
 
At the moment people seem to have bigger things to worry about.
So why not to free ms.Meng as her case looks insignificant on current background and not worth the efforts?
How are things going in your area by the way?
Nothing special. Just today I have been in a supermarket (Lenta - network). It is full of goods.
and there are no crowds of buyers. There are rumours about tough restricting measures but public offices, public transport including underground in Moscow function in usual regime.
At the same time theatres are closed, pupils and students are given vacations. There were very hard times in the past, especially in 90's. So the Russians are ready for (almost) anything.
 
So why not to free ms.Meng as her case looks insignificant on current background and not worth the efforts?

Nothing special. Just today I have been in a supermarket (Lenta - network). It is full of goods.
and there are no crowds of buyers. There are rumours about tough restricting measures but public offices, public transport including underground in Moscow function in usual regime.
At the same time theatres are closed, pupils and students are given vacations. There were very hard times in the past, especially in 90's. So the Russians are ready for (almost) anything.
Go away and peddle the party line elsewhere, we ain't interested, you revolting spreader of Vlad's agitprop.

1584808641236.png
 
So why not to free ms.Meng as her case looks insignificant on current background and not worth the efforts?
There's no news to discuss, as the courts in BC are closed due to the COVID-19 situation there and her case has been deferred. There is no discussion of the case in the newspapers, as obviously everyone is talking about COVID-19. So there's no new information to discuss.

Nothing special. Just today I have been in a supermarket (Lenta - network). It is full of goods.
and there are no crowds of buyers. There are rumours about tough restricting measures but public offices, public transport including underground in Moscow function in usual regime.
At the same time theatres are closed, pupils and students are given vacations. There were very hard times in the past, especially in 90's. So the Russians are ready for (almost) anything.
I had read in the newspapers that at least some doctors in Moscow were reporting COVID-19 cases as "pneumonia", because if they reported them as COVID-19 then their office would be closed for quarantine and they would lose income. Thus the numbers are under-reported and the authorities have no reliable source of information.

If it takes off in Russia the growth is exponential and it can take you by surprise. When the news of the virus first came out late last year in China, it seemed like a distant problem. Then suddenly it wasn't.

I would suggest that you take care and be prepared to deal with it.
 
It’s nothing to do with democracy, it’s international collaboration so that criminals don’t benefit purely from geographical boundaries.

It all remains subject to criteria so you don’t just handover anyone to another country on any charge.

As opposed to Russia where you don’t hand over anyone to face justice and make them TV stars when it’s good for image and disappear when it’s not
Propose our American friends to void the wife of the diplomat her diplomatic immunity and send her to the UK. She apparently violated British laws and caused death of the innocent victim.
 
Propose our American friends to void the wife of the diplomat her diplomatic immunity and send her to the UK. She apparently violated British laws and caused death of the innocent victim.
She did
But she told the police here that she would remain in the UK.
She then left and is using the international agreement on immunity.

This bears no comparison to Huawei
An electronics company has no diplomacy agreement across the world, however it does show one of the reasons why in this case she is placed under house arrest so that she does not hop off to China to escape the possibility of a trial.
A trial offers two resolutions - guilty or innocent and clearing her name
 
She did
But she told the police here that she would remain in the UK.
She then left and is using the international agreement on immunity.

This bears no comparison to Huawei
An electronics company has no diplomacy agreement across the world, however it does show one of the reasons why in this case she is placed under house arrest so that she does not hop off to China to escape the possibility of a trial.
A trial offers two resolutions - guilty or innocent and clearing her name
But she is still one and half years in detention, maybe in the golden but cage. What is the reasonable time interval for detention in a democratic country? It is my question. Could she be in detention 2, 3, 5 or more years? It looks as ms.Meng could be under arrest for many years.
It is not fair situation.
Her case can be resolved (this or that way) within weeks if not days. But Canadian justice (or 'justice'?) is too passive apparently for political reasons.
@terminal do you agree that the case is in fact political one and ms.Meng is a victim of politically motivated persecution?
 
But she is still one and half years in detention, maybe in the golden but cage. What is the reasonable time interval for detention in a democratic country? It is my question. Could she be in detention 2, 3, 5 or more years? It looks as ms.Meng could be under arrest for many years.
It is not fair situation.
Her case can be resolved (this or that way) within weeks if not days. But Canadian justice (or 'justice'?) is too passive apparently for political reasons.
@terminal do you agree that the case is in fact political one and ms.Meng is a victim of politically motivated persecution?
Could be resolved in days?

Earlier you were saying why not just forget about it?

Make your mind up
 

Slime

LE
Could be resolved in days?

Earlier you were saying why not just forget about it?

Make your mind up
Don’t rush him, he is still trying to pluck up the courage and moral fibre to also admit Russia should send the first two Salisbury Novichock suspects, and those charged with the MH17 shoot down for trial outside of Russia.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Carbon 6 The Intelligence Cell 21
stanley_bomb_squad Travel 38
S Living Overseas 23

Latest Threads

Top