well first, they need to prove that she lied or they lied
unless they have emails, good luck with that
case will be dismissed eventually, and messages sent to the world business community
well first, they need to prove that she lied or they lied
unless they have emails, good luck with that
case will be dismissed eventually, and messages sent to the world business community
At last a source from a recognised government agency albeit in Chinese but as they say, from the horses mouth, thank you.
Using my translation app, (Imtranslator) here is the Chinese to English translation:
"National Intelligence Law of the People's Republic
(Adopted at the 28th meeting of the Standing Committee of the 12th National People's Congress on June 27, 2017)
Article 7 Any organization or citizen shall support, assist and cooperate with state intelligence work in accordance with the law, and keep the secrets of national intelligence work known to the public.
The State protects individuals and organizations that support, assist and cooperate with national intelligence work."
Point one, it is a later version - 27/06/17 ('arry 1 - OhOh 0)
Point two it includes 'arrys second sentence. ('arry 2 - OhOh 0)
A resounding defeat for over hasty OhOh.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't agree with kangaroo courts as adopted in some countries.
I agree, but the same doubt can be levelled at the prosecution statements. In accordance to Canadian law both sides testimony is tested in court, the prosecutors as well as the defendants. Currently neither have been in a Canadian trial court, no evidence has been tested by legal means and a verdict decided by a jury.
When, where and to whom? In Canada, to a Canadian court? A link would be a starter, my apologies if you have already posted it.
None at all, if proven guilty in a Canadian court of law and they have jurisdiction.
Yet to be proven, in a Canadian court of law, otherwise she would have been convicted, sentenced and be serving her sentence in a Canadian jail.
I disagree, Canadian law should apply to all citizens, if they have jurisdiction, and followed equally relentlessly, without reference to age, sex or nationality.
From Section 553 - Absolute Jurisdiction.
"or thing or of the proceeds was obtained by or derived directly or indirectly fromthe commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment or an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constituted an offence punishable by indictment, "
http://www.criminal-code.ca/criminal...ion/index.html
I suspect the offence would have to be conducted, have been conducted within Canada, or affected a Canadian citizen or company in some way. Rather than worldwide, but I maybe a TD lawyer will clarify.
Last edited by OhOh; 08-12-2018 at 07:36 PM.
A tray full of GOLD is not worth a moment in time.
She is being accused in a Canadian court of facing charges triable under Canadian laws.
Unless the ameristanies can make that accusation "highly likely" to the Canadian Minister of Justice the "young lady" cannot be extradited.
The process illustrated with another suspect:
"Canadian Extradition Act
Under the Canadian Extradition Act, which lays out the process for extradition with other countries, the federal government can enter into a “specific agreement” to arrange extradition for a particular case. This may occur when a foreign state asks to extradite a Canadian citizen, resident, or a person of interest who fled to Canada, for the purpose of prosecution, following through with sentencing of those already convicted, or enforcing a sentencing.
To begin the process, a foreign government must make a formal request for extradition to Canada’s Minister of Justice, where the foreign country urgently wants a person in Canada to be detained, they may make a “provisional arrest” request, with an extradition request to follow.
The Department of Justice then has 30 days to determine whether the alleged crimes would be considered crimes on Canadian soil. After looking at the evidence, the Minister of Justice must then decide whether to surrender the accused to a foreign state."
https://www.canadianfraudnews.com/ka...s-extradition/
The Canadians are trying the "highly likely" route, a la "Salisbury 3 - The Asian Angel of Death"?
She's got a one-way ticket to Guantanamo Bay Detention/Re-education camp
Last edited by OhOh; 08-12-2018 at 10:56 PM.
Bless her, looks like she's in chokey for the weekend.
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-N...7611544284184/Dec. 8 (UPI) -- Canadian prosecutors revealed details in the U.S. case against the chief financial officer of Huawei, who faces extradition to the United States, at a bail hearing in Vancouver.
Meng Wanzhou, 46, the daughter of company founder Ren Zhengfei, was arrested Dec. 1 while changing planes in Vancouver, British Columbia, on her way from Hong Kong to Mexico on suspicion she violated U.S. trade sanctions against Iran.
At a bail hearing Friday, it was revealed that her arrest stemmed from a warrant that a U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued on August 22.
Prosecutors alleged in court documents that Huawei used an unofficial subsidiary called Skycom from 2009 to 2014 to conduct business with Iran in violation of United States and European Union sanctions against the nation.
Canadian Justice Department attorney John Gibb-Carsley said Meng had "direct involvement" with Huawei's representations to banks.
The company has had a tense relationship with the U.S. government this year. The Justice Department opened an investigation into Huawei in April, probing whether it sold products to Iran. In May, the Pentagon banned the company's phones from being sold on U.S. military bases worldwide because they "may pose an unacceptable risk to Department's personnel, information and mission," Pentagon spokesman Maj. Dave Eastburn said at the time.
Meng was on Skycom's board between February 2008 and April 2009, and as CFO she misrepresented Skycom and Huawei as the same company, deceiving U.S. banks into doing business in violation of U.S. sanctions on Iran, according to court documents filed Nov. 30.
Details regarding her detainment were limited previously due to a press ban prior to the hearing.
Wanzhou's lawyer argued that she is not a flight risk because of her ties to Canada. With no decision made Friday, she remains in custody, and the bail hearing is set to resume again on Monday.
"We will continue to follow the bail hearing on Monday," the company said in a statement. "We have every confidence that the Canadian and U.S. legal systems will reach the right conclusion."
Still trying to work out on which planet these yank fucks think that just because they write something on a bit of paper, a chinese women in canada working for a firm that sells shit to Iran is therefore imprisoned.Prosecutors alleged in court documents that Huawei used an unofficial subsidiary called Skycom from 2009 to 2014 to conduct business with Iran in violation of United States and European Union sanctions against the nation.
A quick look at one of Irans online shops shows you that the yanks are VERY selective at applying their "ohhh sanctions - we're going to arrest you" lark.
can you grab someone on international territory? she was not "legally" in Canada since she was changing plane
^ It is a bit of a grey area at YVR. Some flights do their US immigration and customs clearance at YVR and fly to US as if it were a domestic flight.
It might end up like the border scene in Pursuit of Honor. "Have you broken a law in Canada?"........ "I'll consider that a minor infraction"
Better to think inside the pub, than outside the box?
I apologize if any offence was caused. unless it was intended.
You people, you think I know feck nothing; I tell you: I know feck all
Those who cannot change their mind, cannot change anything.
I'm sure they've crossed all their Ts and dotted all the i s.
Meanwhile China seems to think their citizens are entitled to flout the laws of whatever country they choose without facing the consequences.
https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...-cfo-not-freedChina threatens Canada with 'grave consequences' if Huawei CFO not freed
Chinese backlash intensifies as Meng Wanzhou faces extradition to US over fraud allegations
Reuters
Sun 9 Dec 2018 01.22 GMT
China has warned Canada there would be severe consequences if it did not immediately release Huawei’s chief financial officer, calling the case “extremely nasty”.
Meng Wanzhou was arrested in Canada on 1 December and faces extradition to the United States, which alleges that she covered up her company’s links to a firm that tried to sell equipment to Iran despite sanctions.
The executive is the daughter of Huawei’s founder.
If extradited to the US, Meng would face charges of conspiracy to defraud multiple financial institutions, a Canadian court heard on Friday, with a maximum sentence of 30 years for each charge.
No decision was reached at the extradition hearing after nearly six hours of arguments and counter-arguments, and the hearing was adjourned until Monday.
In a statement on Saturday, China’s foreign ministry said the vice-foreign minister, Le Yucheng, had issued the warning to release Meng to Canada’s ambassador in Beijing, summoning him to lodge a “strong protest”.
China’s official news agency Xinhua reported Le summoned the Canadian ambassador, John McCallum, in protest and urged Ottawa to release Meng immediately or face “grave consequences that the Canadian side should be held accountable for”.
Adam Austen, a spokesman for the Canadian foreign minister, Chrystia Freeland, said on Saturday there was “nothing to add beyond what the minister said yesterday”.
Freeland told reporters on Friday the relationship with China was important and valued, and Canada’s ambassador in Beijing has assured the Chinese that Meng would receive consular access.
When asked about the possible Chinese backlash, the prime minister, Justin Trudeau, told reporters on Friday Canada had a very good relationship with Beijing.
Canada’s arrest of Meng at the request of the United States while she was changing plane in Vancouver was a serious breach of her lawful rights, Le said. The move “ignored the law, was unreasonable” and was in its very nature “extremely nasty”, he added.
“There will probably be a deep freeze with the Chinese in high-level visits and exchanges,” David Mulroney, a former Canadian ambassador to China, said on Friday.
“The ability to talk about free trade will be put in the ice box for a while. But we’re going to have to live with that. That’s the price of dealing with a country like China.”
Meng’s arrest took place on the same day the US president, Donald Trump, met in Argentina with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, to resolve an escalating trade war between the world’s two largest economies.
The news of Meng’s arrest has roiled stock markets and drawn condemnation from Chinese authorities, although Trump and his top economic advisers have played down its importance to trade talks after the two leaders agreed to a truce.
A Huawei spokesman said on Friday the company has “every confidence that the Canadian and US legal systems will reach the right conclusion”. The company has said it complies with all applicable export control and sanctions laws and other regulations.
“If we stop testing right now we’d have very few cases, if any.” Donald J Trump.
^ Agreed but once you are on the ground you are in Canada regardless of which side of immigration you are.
Same at any airport. Except of course in the Tom Hank's movie.
exactly, I bet that's what her lawyer is arguing and could explain why the whole thing was delayed over the week-end
I think US authorities wanted some quality time with her, over the week-end, and she will be gone on Monday because their case for her arrest is too thin
I guess the "interesting" point maybe why were US representatives allowed to detain her on Canadian soil, if she has broken no Canadian law.
Are you suggesting Canada's Department of Justice are ameristani "representatives"?
I was under the impression she had been arrested by the Canada's Department of Justice's (CDJ) officers. As the CDJ believe she is guilty of one of their, Canadian, fraud laws. I hope their not relying on the word of the ameristani regime agencies.
It appears that Canada's Department of Justice's legal team are have trouble in convincing a Canadian judge she is guilty of anything, currently.
BTW, where is the law written that I am not allowed (by whom) to do business with the one I want?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)