Mt. Gox CEO Karpeles refuses travel to U.S. for questioning
cryptocoinsnews.com
cryptocoinsnews.com
Their offer to "pay all travel expenses" was hilarious. As if $5,000 or even 10x that amount is even a rounding error to the case they're pursuing against him.
US Courts can use bankruptcy law to protect you from your creditors. But if he refuses to comply with the Courts, then why should get get any bankruptcy protection?
Who said he refuses to comply with the courts? He's opposing a filing made by the plaintiffs. The court has not even ruled on the filing (which is merely a request from the Plaintiffs for the court to order).
Deposition by video conference is common. Alternatively, he's offered to meet them in Taiwan. The guy can be guilty of whatever, but to paint him negatively because he's not going out of his way to help someone who wants to destroy him doesn't make sense to me.
2. He has failed to return that money. Furthermore, he claims he cannot repay the money back and requests Bankruptcy protection
The Plaintiffs are in their right to try and get their money back. You don't just borrow millions of dollars and lose it all. Actually, you're allowed to do that in the US as long as you file Bankruptcy protection and listen to court requests and make an honest effort to repay as much of the money back. Its one of the reasons why the US is good for businesses, Bankruptcy law reduces the risks businesses make in regards to losing money / paying creditors.
It is okay to fail in the US... but only if you properly document your failures and make an honest effort to repay what you owe.
However, that is not what he has done. He's hiding out in Taiwan thinking there is some government conspiracy against him. On the contrary, US Laws are relatively forgiving. Hell, he may have multiple layers of legal defenses: if he properly created a Limited-liability corporation, his personal wealth will remain uneffected. Currently, he is NOT responsible for paying back the millions upon millions of dollars that he should be responsible for.
But that is only because of Bankruptcy protection. The US Courts and US Law protects you from creditors in this situation.
The Texas Court is protecting him from creditors currently. He does NOT have to pay all the money back, so long as the courts are on his side. However, the Texas Courts are complaining because this man is utterly ridiculous and ignorant on how the US Court system works. He is biting the hand that feeds him, so to speak.
In fact, it is quite unfair that the US Law treats businesses with such leniency. Student Loans evade bankruptcy protection for example. Nevertheless, if Karpeles plays his cards right, he will not have to pay back his loans. But he has to work with the Texas court for that kind of protection. It is only fair.
And remember, this isn't the "Federal Government" giving him this protection, it is the State of Texas. The Texas Court is asking for him to enter Texas. I'm not from that state, but I imagine that Texas has more respect for people who actually put forth the effort to appear in person in court.
Anything less is rather disrespectful to the Judge.
No, its the Federal judiciary. The particular bankruptcy court happens to be located in Texas (US Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas). People often confuse federal courts located in a state with state courts, but they are not at all the same thing, and have nothing to do with the state government.
The whole "multiple governments" thing in the US gets confusing sometimes.
You've completely misunderstood the situation. No Court has ordered him to attend a deposition in the United States. The Plaintiff (a normal everyday person) has filed a Motion to compel the Defendant (Karpeles) to attend a deposition in the United States.
The Court has not ruled on that Motion. The Court will eventually either deny or grant the motion. If they deny the motion, then Karpales doesn't have to come to the U.S. for the deposition. If they grant the motion and he refuses to come then you might have an argument that he is flouting U.S. Courts. But we're not there yet, and since compelling someone who lives thousands of miles away to appear for a deposition in person is not a common practice, I imagine we will never be there.
Imagine I live in Alaska and you live in Florida. Now imagine I sue you because you left a comment disagreeing with me on Hacker News. I file a motion to compel you to fly to Alaska so I can ask you a bunch of questions in front of a court reporter (i.e. a deposition). You file a response to the motion saying, "That is ridiculous. I'm not flying to Alaska for this. I believe this lawsuit has no merit. I can be deposed by video conference just as easily."
That is precisely the status of this matter in the Karpeles case.
I'm not from that state, but I imagine that Texas has more respect for people who actually put forth the effort to appear in person in court.
Again, you totally misunderstand this situation. He's not being asked to come to Court by the Court. He's being asked to show up to a deposition by the Plaintiff. A deposition, if you are unfamiliar, is typically done in the office of a private attorney. Not in the Court.
I think Assange should go to Sweden to face questioning and his likely arrest. I think he's denying himself and the other parties involved justice on the matter, something Assange claims to hold in high regard. However, I also don't think he'd ever make it to Sweden to begin with, even if he did decide to leave the embassy. And, even if he did make it to Sweden, the U.S. State Department has made it clear that they will hunt him to the edge of the Earth for what he's done and enabled others to do.
I don't know what this is, but it sure isn't subtle.
[1] http://www.tagesschau.de/videoblog/london_calling/londoncall...
From wikipedia:
"Ecuadorian officials also suggested that Swedish authorities could question Assange at the embassy.[186][187] The prosecutor had already explained that Assange was not wanted "merely to assist with our enquiries," but for "the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings"—that is, to be arrested, charged, and tried."
And as far as Assange goes, the way it was initially reported it seemed like an innocent questioning for Assange as well (for those unfamiliar with Swedish law.
Given the U.S. propensity for arresting foreign nationals for allegedly breaking U.S. laws while completely outside of U.S. territory just as soon as they finally set foot on it, I would politely decline this request as well. The offer to pay 100% of all travel expenses up front is particularly suspicious.
Given what has already occurred, I'd probably also wear nitrile gloves and a dust mask when handling the "first class plane tickets" sent by my former customers.
Mt.Gox sought bankruptcy protection in Japan, and then in the US (tied to the Japanese process). People with claims in the US against Mt.Gox, as is fairly routine in bankruptcy cases where there are active claims, sought to have Karpeles testimony as a representative of the bankrupt firm with relevant knowledge compelled by the bankruptcy court.
> The offer to pay 100% of all travel expenses up front is particularly suspicious.
Payment of a witnesses travel costs, lodging, plus attendance fees in US federal court is generally mandatory (28 USC Sec. 1821.) Offering to pay up front as a means of removing a potential convenience barrier for a witness is, AFAIK, fairly routine, rather than "particularly suspicious".
I am not one who believes that physical custody of a witness is either necessary or sufficient to obtain truthful statements from him. I already find some of the traditional rituals of courtroom procedure to lie somewhere between useless and ridiculous, so I still stand behind my statement. I will now expand it to say that the routine practice of paying for the physical transportation and upkeep of a witness is particularly suspicious and wasteful.
If you want questions answered, ask them. You should probably be prepared to be disappointed in the answers, if you get any at all. You may find that some people are more forthcoming when a grim-faced person in a robe, with armed men ready to mete out punishment at a word, is not the one demanding answers.
We have an Internet now. Information moves a lot faster and more inexpensively by itself than it does in the custody of a human courier. Thus, the stated motive--"to appear for questioning"--appears on its face to be bogus.
Whether or not you believe that it is necessary, it is a routine demand in lawsuits, not evidence of some special government conspiracy to arrest Karpeles.
> or for the corporation's designated representative in court to be a specific individual rather than an attorney hired for that purpose.
This isn't about a "corporation's designated representative", its about a witness with first-hand knowledge of relevant facts. The corporation's designated representative will be a lawyer hired for the purpose, but they obviously are not a suitable witness.
> I am not one who believes that physical custody of a witness is either necessary or sufficient to obtain truthful statements from him.
Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant to what can reasonably be concluded from the fact of someone asking for it in a context where it is completely normal without any special conspiracy aimed at arrest.
Yes, if the world was usually run on your personal preferences, then this might be an unusual request that justifies some kind of conspiratorial conclusion. But in the real world we actually live in, it is not.
The purpose of a deposition isn't to elicit information as quickly as possible. That can be held by document requests responded to by email. The purpose of a deposition is to take the sworn testimony of the witness and to record various aspects of their testimony ahead of a trial. Most importantly, demeanor and other side information that isn't properly conveyed by a video deposition. One of the most important concerns, especially with a defendant accused of fraud--is ensuring that the defendant is offering their own answers, and is not merely reading scripted answers from out of the camera's view.
You may find that some people are more forthcoming when a grim-faced person in a robe, with armed men ready to mete out punishment at a word, is not the one demanding answers.
That's cute. You actually think a deposition is where a judge asks questions while the bailiff stands menacingly over the witness? Here's a clue: depositions are conducted by the parties themselves without the assistance of the court. Most depositions are held at the law offices of either the plaintiff or the defendant; the only 3rd-party present is the courtroom reporter who, despite the name, is actually a non-court affiliated commercial service provider licensed to transcribe depositions. At most, the judge will participate in a deposition only if the parties call him to resolve a legal dispute. Bailiffs do not participate in depositions under any circumstances.
An oath is not necessary for that. It suffices to say, "If you misrepresent the facts here, we will punish you for it in addition to whatever may be decided in this case. Do you understand?" and for the witness to say "Yes".
If a fact as stated in a deposition is discovered to actually be false, the armed men and iron bars do come into play. Don't make the mistake that just because they are not physically present and visible at the time that the threat of them is not important while someone is being deposed.
I can't tell if you are an apologist for the system, eliding over its obvious flaws, or someone genuinely clueless about theories of trust.
Either way, some cross-disciplinary study of the development of moral behavior in primates may be useful. Imagine asking young children of varying ages whether they took the cookie from the table in the room with the hidden camera, and asking the follow-up question about whether they were lying or not.
After having done so, you may realize that most court procedures operate on the principle that people make moral choices based upon fear of retribution after getting caught. This is entirely unsuitable for people at different stages of moral development from the median, such as children, retarded adults, sociopaths, geniuses, sociologists, atheists, autistics, and philosophers. The implied courtroom intimidation tactics just don't work.
There are several reasons why. Telling the truth as you know it is not an absolute defense against being punished anyway. The only information the court may have about something may be what you tell them. The measure for credibility is not how true something is, but how believable it is. The punishment for lying may be less than the punishment for telling the truth. My cartel enforcer can punish me to a greater extent than the court's enforcers. Etcetera.
Almost everything you just wrote is a fantasy view of the US judicial system, morality, and cognitive development, and psychology which doesn't actually exist in the real world.
It could be true. Were we arguing formally, I might ask you to prove your (negative) statement instead of just nakedly asserting that everything I said is wrong.
I was referring to Kohlberg's stages of moral development, assuming that the common criminal, as encountered by the justice system, would be at a very low stage, on par with very young children. The justice system's overwhelming focus upon punishment and deterrence seems to align with that assumption.
The system itself can only accomodate people between stages one and four. If, for whatever reason, someone decides that the law is an ass, and goes to stage five or six with a personal philosophy that is fundamentally incompatible with social norms, there is really nothing the system can do to accomodate him.
A catch-and-punish-by-lawful-authority model does nothing to prevent crimes by people who have arrived at a sociopathic morality model by introspection. IF Karpeles is such a person, the actions taken in civil court are completely pointless, as he would never voluntarily submit to the authority of what he would see as a system morally inferior to his own.
You can't really know how to deal with people at stage five or six without knowing the foundation principles of their morality. It could be literally anything. There is no reliable way for a cooperative society to enforce conformity on someone who has rejected society's common set of rules for another based on original thought.
Deleted comment
Yesh, that's what I thought.
edit: It's like everyone forgot what happened with Mt Gox and now assumes that Karpeles is the second coming of Julian Assange
I would not go either.