John Key statements on knowledge of Kim Dotcom to be proven wrong

Background: [www.3news.co.nz]
Trade: [www.ipredict.co.nz]

[www.abc.net.au]

Quote

"[Warner Brothers executives] came here they told [New Zealand prime minister John Key] - 'These Megaupload guys are really giving us a headache. The founder, you know, is moving to New Zealand. Can you help us?' And he did," Dotcom said.

"They came here to New Zealand to negotiate with John Key about shooting The Hobbit movies here."

Dotcom says his website was offered up "on a silver platter" as part of negotiations with executives.

In the video, from 11:25 onwards, Kim Dotcom says he he has proof of the above, and that will be revealed in the court case - which has now been pushed back to March next year, but the date on this contract is 1st of Jan 2015.

Lanthanide Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> In the video, from 11:25 onwards, Kim Dotcom says
> he he has proof of the above, and that will be
> revealed in the court case - which has now been
> pushed back to March next year, but the date on
> this contract is 1st of Jan 2015.


I won't be surprised if the court case is again and again postponed until after the 2014 elections and Key is gone away to Hawaii from NZ!

Does turning red count?

brucehoult Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does turning red count?

...and sheepiish look!

In today's parliamentary questions for oral anawers from Mr Peters, Key has admitted knowing about Kim.Com prior to 2012. Listen to the answers in the link below, especially from 1:50 onwards.

[inthehouse.co.nz]

Don't agree. The stock is very specific that Key must have known the name "Kim Dotcom". The part he says happened in 2011, was in reference to a "German resident", so is not evidence that Key knew the name "Kim Dotcom".

I have serious doubts as to whether this will close at $1, because of the contract's specific requirement:

Quote

The contract will NOT pay $1 if evidence proves only that Mr Key knew of the name Kim Schmitz and does not clearly provide evidence that Mr Key knew of the name Kim Dotcom prior to 19 January 2012.

It appears that Kim Dotcom's evidence that Key knew of him is that Dotcom applied for residency and the SIS had a recommendation against it. John Key went to the US and the next day the SIS dropped the recommendation, which allowed Kim to gain residency.

If this is in fact Dotcom's proof, then it seems unlikely he will be able to provide any sort of evidence that shows Key knew the name "Kim Dotcom", even though in all likelihood he did, there just won't be any hard evidence of the sort required for this contract to close at $1.


Personally I think the contract is rather poorly thought out, in that it is pedantically focusing on the aspect of whether Key knew the specific name, rather than whether he knew of the actual person. We could well have a situation where Key is shown to be a liar in the court of public opinion, but this contract still closes at $0.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2013 10:13PM by Lanthanide.

Kim Dotcom said on Radio NZ this morning that he'll be announcing his evidence that John Key knew of him before the raids on 15 September, 5 days before the election.

He tweeted about it a couple of weeks ago: [twitter.com]

Just to make this contract even more complex, what if it turns out that the PM's office knew of Kim Dotcom? i.e. Just as the "PM" was briefed on the Phil Goff OIA request.

Good point, seems the "PM's Office" is a place where you know what's convenient and don't know what's inconvenient!

How is this contract going to be judged if Kim Dotcom produces evidence that John Key knew about him prior to the raid, if John Key then produces evidence that "shows" that he didn't, eg notes from when he was first briefed on the raid and he asks if KDC is Korean, with the argument being this 'proves' he didn't know KDC was or he wouldn't have asked the question?

Given Key's notorious "brain fades", would KDC's evidence in this case be enough to close the contract at $1? My reading of the contract is that yes it would be enough.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2014 07:53AM by Lanthanide.

Dunno, but the trading on this one is pretty crazy at the moment!

The rumour is that the evidence is a recording of a conversation between Key and Warner Brothers executives where WB tell Key to give KDC residency so they can investigate and extradite him, and then go on to talk about changing the law so as to allow the hobbit production.

Still, could be an expensive rumour for some

Its an email:
[www.nzherald.co.nz]

Would be good to have a note from admin about now, because to me this means the stock is effectively about whether the veracity of the email is proven or not. What constitutes proof?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2014 03:00AM by Hamish.

Now on 3News and TVNZ. So the contract is now about whether a reasonable person believes the email to be accurate.

Yes, would be nice to have admin chime in on this.

Seems to me it doesn't meet the criteria to close at $1, because the email is second-hand information, so we cannot know if John Key was told the name Kim Schmitz, Kim Dotcom, or both. But because we cannot know this, and the email "does not clearly provide evidence that Mr Key knew of the name Kim Dotcom", I don't think it constitutes the proof required by the contract.

Which just goes back to my earlier comment in this thread, that the wording of this contract is too petty and specific.

I think that if we accept the email is real, then it has to close at $1 under the 'reasonable person' clause.

There is this NZ First PR from 2013 [www.scoop.co.nz]

Quote

Andrew Williams MP today produced evidence that a director of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), Kevin Tsujihara, was part of Government talks on The Hobbit in October 2010.

“Mr Key hosted Kevin Tsujihara at Premier House on 26 and 27 October 2010.

“At the time, Mr Tsujihara was President of Warner Brothers Home Entertainment and oversaw Warner Bros’ anti-piracy operations. He is now the CEO.”

Along with that email, it becomes, IMO, unreasonable on balance that the email isn't true on face value - that Tsujihara met with John Key and personally discussed the matter.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2014 03:18AM by Hamish.

So there appear to be 3 hurdles to clear:
1. Veracity: "The evidence, and proof of its veracity"
2. Reasonable person test: "a reasonable person would believe proves, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Key knew of Kim Dotcom's name before 19 January 2012."
3. Proof of "Kim Dotcom" and not "Kim Schmitz": "The contract will NOT pay $1 if evidence proves only that Mr Key knew of the name Kim Schmitz and does not clearly provide evidence that Mr Key knew of the name Kim Dotcom prior to 19 January 2012. "

It seems that #2 and #3 are directly at odds with each other. I think a reasonable person, assuming this is verified, would agree John Key knew of "Kim Dotcom". But the evidence we have does not clear the specific hurdle of #3, because John Key is neither the sender nor recipient of the email.

If #3 weren't in play the whole thing would just hinge on #1 and be pretty cut and dried. Another needlessly complicated stock by iPredct

Of course John Key may come out and admit it, that he lied, but that seems unlikely.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2014 03:23AM by Lanthanide.

Quote

Key responded today saying: "I do not believe that to be correct, I have no recollection of the conversation that's alluded to in that email.

"There are no records there and the meetings that I had were with other people around me, so in the end, we're going to get to the bottom of it but we don't have any record of it.

"In all the meetings that I had with Mr Tsujihara were in public, with other people being there.

Asked if the other executives would back him up, Key replied: "In the end, you'll have to talk to Kevin [Tsujihara], but the meetings that I had with him were with lots of other people around me."

Key said he was only made aware of the email 10 minutes before speaking with media, but he would be checking with the relevant Hollywood executives the authenticity of the email.

"But look, I'd never heard of the guy [Dotcom] I'd never been briefed on the guy, so i can't recall any conversation with him, I don't believe it to be correct - we'll go and check that out."

Key said he believed the email was sent by one of the executives to the MPAA.

Key flatly rejected being involved in any plan to extradite Dotcom to the US.

[www.stuff.co.nz]

It is the view of the admin team at this time that the current available evidence is not sufficient for this stock to close at $1. However, if this email is proven to be real, then this would be sufficient for the stock to close at $1.

We cannot see any reason for Kevin Tsujihara to lie about such a meeting, so it is our opinion that the condition "a reasonable person would believe proves, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Key knew of Kim Dotcom's name before 19 January 2012." would be met by this email. The only condition not met is "The evidence, and proof of its veracity, must be published or broadcast". Please note that the proof of its veracity is a requirement; it is not whether a reasonable person believes that it is real.

We are willing to consider further opinions on this matter with regards to the "reasonable person" clause, but please note the clause:

"In trading this contract, traders therefore acknowledge a degree of subjectivity in the contract and agree that iPredict's judgment on all aspects of the contract will be final."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2014 05:11AM by admin.

admin do you have any comment on the specific clause about the evidence clearly having to identify John Key knowing the name Kim Dotcom, not just Kim Schmitz?

Are you satisfied that the email evidence we have clearly shows Key must have known the name Kim Dotcom?

Or, is this clause simply being ignored, in the sense that the 'reasonable person' clause has prominence due to the nature and content of this particular evidence?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2014 05:18AM by Lanthanide.

We are interpreting that clause as being concerned with the case where the evidence proved John Key knew specifically of the name Kim Schmitz, ie that name was specifically mentioned in the evidence rather than Kim Dotcom. As Kim Schmitz is not mentioned at any point, and the only name used in the email is "dotcom", we do not think the clause applies.

Ok, that makes sense.

Well that was an anticlimax

Yup... so I wonder what the email thing was all about then.

The party operatives definitely moved in after that "moment of truth" session. They've put large orders in for National to buy at 0.83 and Labour to sell at 0.15

Well if you are so sure of party insiders manipulating the market, why don't cash in on this overpriced stock?