Detention of Meng Wanzhou - CFO of Huawei

913 posts / 0 new
Last post

Meng Wanzhou's Lawyers Back in Court, Will Try to Prove She's a Victim of Conspiracy*

"Lawyers for Meng Wanzhou will appear in BC Supreme Court Monday in a bid for information they believe will establish that the Huawei executive was the victim of a conspiracy between US and Canadian law agencies. The arguments around alleged collusion between agencies are one of three lines of challenge the defence ultimately plans to make in a bid to have the case tossed. Meng's lawyers also claim she is being used as a political pawn by US President Donald Trump, and that the US misrepresented crucial facts of the case against her in the initial set of documents used to justify her arrest for extradition. Although the court has adopted a streamlined schedule, Holmes is not likely to reach a conclusion on extradition until late next year..."

*Seems obvious:

US Blacklists 38 Huawei Affiliates

Pompeo calls on allies to take similar measures to protect 'international stability'..."


Meng Wanzhou returns to court as US election focus and political pressures mount

"...Legal observers say this week's hearings are unlikely to sway the [Liberal appointed] judge, given the nature of Canadian extradition law. But they believe Canada's justice minister will face increasing pressure  to intervene due to allegations of political interference and China's ongoing detention of Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor.

Meng has accused US President Donald Trump of using her as a bargaining chip in a trade war with China. She also claims Canadian and American authorities mounted a criminal investigation against her, sharing information from her electronic devices and questioning her for three hours before she was officially arrested - contrary to the instructions of the judge who issued the extradition warrant.

Starting Monday, Meng's lawyers hope to convince Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes that claims about the US allegedly misleading the court also meet the threshold needed for consideration as an abuse of process worthy of ending the proceedings. The defence team claim the US provided the judge with a skewed version of events by omitting facts that prove HSBC didn't rely on Meng's assurances to decide the bank wanted to keep financing Huawei..."


Many resonances with the Julian Assange extradition trial underway in London. Both are examples of subservient vassal court systems turning tricks for  imperial Washington in outrageous and obvious violation of their own guidelines such as refusing extradition where it is obvious 'political' considerations are involved. In both cases vicious and sustained smear and disinformation campaigns manufacture consent for both kangaroo courts to do their dirty work with little criticism or protest. A compliant and complicit concierge media as always assists.


NDPP wrote:

Meng Wanzhou returns to court as US election focus and political pressures mount

"...Legal observers say this week's hearings are unlikely to sway the [Liberal appointed] judge, given the nature of Canadian extradition law.

WTF kind of stupid, brain dead comment was that to add to a good article explaining that any Judge in our court system is likely to not stay the proceedings because our Extradition law is totally fucked. Do you have any kind of evidence or even a substantive rumor to back up the implication that the Judge in this case is corrupt or is this a new trend in comments; red herrings jumping down rabbit holes.


Oh I forgot it's only in the US Supreme Court and the replacement of Ruth 'one-black-intern-in-30 years' Ginsburg, where the party that names judges matters, not in the impeccably politically impartial bench of BC. But never mind, I'm sure you'll be very popular with the rednecks for your little outburst anyway.


Fuck of NDPP. If you can't see the difference between how our judicial system appoints it Judges and the US system it only shows how superficial your analysis is. All Judges in Canada have been appointed by either Liberal or Conservative governments so if that is the only criteria for claiming they are corrupt and will judge along party lines then we have one fucked up system but that is far from reality and your over the top comments don't actually help any debate about our judiciary and the extradition case.


You fuck off BC lawyer and take your pollyanna legal fiction BC bullshit with you.  I've seen close up and personal the malevolence of your BC judges defending the interests of their political masters and am quite well acquainted both with the machinations of their selection and the behind the scenes orchestration of the cases these judicial hitmen sit upon.   Crooked as a dog's hind leg. Both of these cases at item are clearly and manifestly tainted by their overtly political nature and thereby entitled to disqualification.  Both defendants are being tried for offenses not criminal in the jurisdictions in which they are being tried. Yet both judges have wilfully ignored these caveats in order to fulfill their political marching orders which are to deliver Julian Assange and Meng Wanzhou to the tender mercies of Washington and nothing but nothing, especially the law is going to stop them. Because that's the way the power relations work. These are fixed games with pre-determined outcomes whether you know it or not.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

My recollection, from my lawyering days back in the 1970s, is that you could tell the party a judge had supported before being appointed by who gave him the job, but you couldn't tell which party a judge had been appointed by from the the legal principles they applied in their judgments. This may be somewhat less so now, but I agree with krop that the judiciary here in Canada is not nearly as partisan in its decisions as it is in the U.S.


NDPP thanks for your intelligent and mannered debate. I can see why you are so influential at persuading others to your point of view. You are an American Exceptionalist at heart. You believe theirs is the only system worth understanding so you can't be bothered with the differences between it and other judiciaries. There are lots of US wannabes on the left in Canada.


Update: lawyers of Meng accuse US of misleading Canada. HSBC accused of playing US accomplice

"The case is purely politically driven and HSBC is playing the role of Washington's accomplice, some observers said. The lawyers of Meng explained that there are 3 branches of abuse of judicial process including the political nature of the case, the abuse of power in law enforcement procedures during the arrest of Meng at Vancouver airport and material omissions and misrepresentations in the record of the case."


US misled Canadian court about Meng case so she must be freed: lawyers

"Anyone paying attention to the fact that the US is now involved in two high profile cases to extradite non-US citizens? Not just Free Julian Assange but now also Meng Wanzhou."


Meng Wanzhou's Lawyers Claim US Tried to 'Trick' Judge in Extradition Case

"A lawyer for Meng Wanzhou accused the US Wednesday of abusing the privileges of its extradition treaty with Canada to try to deliver the Huawei executive to New York on a faulty set of facts. In a final bid to BC Supreme Court Associate Chief Justice Heather Homes, Frank Addario told the judge she should hold a detailed hearing on allegations the US misled the court by omitting key components of the case that undermine allegations of fraud against Meng.

Holmes reserved her judgment Wednesday after two and a half days of hearings. Holmes did not say when she expects to deliver a decision on the defence's applications. Meng is next set to appear in court at the end of October, when a week of hearings has been set aside for her lawyers to question the police officers and border agents who detained her at Vancouver airport on Dec.1, 2018. Meng's lawyers claim Canadian authorities gave information about her laptop, phones and tablet to US authorities in what amounted to a covert criminal investigation. A hearing is set for February on those allegations, along with allegations that Meng is being used as a bargaining chip by US President Donald Trump in a trade war with China..."

As with the Assange extradition case, evident and obvious collaboration by vassal authorities with the American overlords  operations against its chosen political targets.


HCSW: Statement on 'Free Meng Wanzhou'

"...These judicial actions against Meng are unjust, politically motivated by the USA, and contrary to the national interests of Canada. Consequently, our Coalition demands that the Government of Canada drop the extradition proceedings against Meng and release her at once. What the US is trying to do, through the extradition of Meng [and Julian Assange] is to apply the extraterritoriality to its international relations, that is, trying to force other countries to abide by domestic US laws.

The US indictment against Meng was approved by a court in New York state on Aug.22, 2018, and the US tried unsuccessfully following that date to pressure literally dozens of countries, through which Meng travelled, to arrest her. Every single country refused until Meng arrived in Vancouver on Dec 1, 2018 and Trudeau [Freeland] slavishly acceded to the allegedly 'urgent' extradition request..."


Judge Upholds Majority of Canada's Privilege Claims in Huawei CFO's US Extradition Case

"I am just so glad Meng Wanzhou is trapped in a state with the rule of law and not a Kafka trial where she can't see the evidence against her. Because that would be authoritarian."

Liberal appointed, Associate Chief Justice Marilyn Homes is a 'safe' judge who sits on this case precisely because she can be trusted to do the right thing as demonstrated by steering it to its intended destination. Her British counterpart, in her London kangaroo court, sitting on the US extradition case of Julian Assange can also be trusted to deliver the intended victim up to the tender mercies of  Washington. This despite the supposed exemption of such outcomes where cases are of an obvious 'political nature'. Naturally both judges have already ruled their cases to be no such thing.