

Dutch Judge Who Ordered Pirate Bay Links Censored Has Conflict of Interest - Tsiolkovsky
http://falkvinge.net/2012/05/12/dutch-judge-who-ordered-pirate-bay-links-censored-found-to-be-corrupt/

======
tluyben2
Everyone following the anti-piracy org BREIN and it's lawsuits in NL knows
that this judge is corrupt, but it cannot really be proven. BREIN always uses
the same judge, they always make it impossible for the defendant to be present
at the hearings (as I understand it, but I don't know much about it, they use
some loophole to make it impossible for the defendant to defend itself at the
moment of the verdict). And he always finds the defendant guilty in these
cases, no matter how insane (like the 'links case' Falkvinge discussed, were
even showing the name of a movie in the forum was considered 'illegal
linking').

This should get more press, but not enough people care in NL I think as this
is only dredged up as 'wow how can this be' in tech forums while it's usually
only a footnote in other press. And I don't believe that's a conspiracy, but
rather that, no-one cares...

~~~
aerique
How can they always use the same judge?

~~~
tluyben2
I have no clue. Maybe it's only the cases he presides which make the press as
BREIN wins there, but I'm fairly positive I read somewhere they always 'use'
this judge. Maybe someone else knows more about it here?

~~~
aerique
Even though I'm dutch and live in NL I have no idea how our judicial system
works. However, I was under the impression that a random judge is appointed to
a case.

 _If_ my impression is correct and this judge actually does the majority of
Brein's cases wouldn't that alone be worth an investigation?

~~~
pgeorgi
If it is like in Germany, there's the concept of the "legal judge": There must
be a regular set of rules which judge covers which cases. That can vary
locally, and over time, but it must apply to all cases filed at the same court
at a time.

These rules exist to ensure that judges can't take over cases they wish to
distort in some way (eg. because they don't like the plaintiff or defendant,
they have a strict opinion on the subject matter, ...).

Unfortunately, the rules used in some places here allow(ed) the plaintiff to
skew things in their favor (if they want a certain judge to handle the case).
If assignment depends on the date of filing, they wait for the right day. If
it's semi-random (but guessable to some very high degree based on prior day's
assignments), they check the records to find the right timing... These
lobbying groups consists mostly of lawyers - if there's a loop hole, they'll
find it.

It's possible that BREIN found a legal way to skew assignments in their favor,
too.

------
sjaakkkkk
FWIW, Geenstijl (probably the largest/most known blog in the Netherlands)
reported on this matter in 2010 already, here
[http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2010/06/rechter_in_zaak...](http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2010/06/rechter_in_zaak_ftd_vriendje_v.html)
(in Dutch).

There has been some uproar about this on (Dutch) internet sites, however I
haven't seen anything about it in mainstream media.

On a related note, just today a small ISP that needed to block TPB has refused
to do it and they are now sued by BREIN
([http://tweakers.net/nieuws/81929/brein-daagt-zeelandnet-
om-t...](http://tweakers.net/nieuws/81929/brein-daagt-zeelandnet-om-the-
pirate-bay-ook-te-blokkeren.html)). The trail will start in June and is
expected to last several months. I just hope this time maybe more uproar will
ensue if the same judge is doing the case again.

~~~
tluyben2
That will be interesting. Shame it takes so long and it will be
'komkommertijd' (summer) so although media will write about it, they already
know that not many will read. On the other hand; it's a good time to get
ANYTHING in any press starting june, so why not this?

Very curious to see if it's Hensen again. I would think it is.

~~~
radicalbyte
After the summer we'll be having elections: this case is proof that NOW is the
time to push the Pirate Partij.

We're the Netherlands, it's our job to be forward thinking, an example to our
friends a few kilometers to the East (the Germans, for those not well versed
in European geography). As it now stands they're past the first corner, but
there's still time to catch up and overtake..

------
powertower
There is so much unproven bullshit and downright deception in that article
that this is the first thread I've flagged in a year and a half.

1st. No one has been charged, tried, and found corrupt.

2nd. Was this association before, during, or after the court case? There
really is a difference between those three.

3rd. What is this "association"? The judge's name is part of the lower
category with a dozen other names. Does this mean he's in the same building?

4th. Even this article is starting to claim (in edit/update, forced by a
commenter) that this "commercial" course was some type of an official bar
course where the two parties were perhaps picked by the bar (as in, they
didn't pick each other).

5th. The article keeps on mentioning that this judge ruled "file names" to be
illigal. Right, because taking the URL and breaking it appart before posting
it on a warez site clearly turns everything around and makes the forum a place
for a purfectly legitimate discussion of "file names". The author seems to be
outraged by this.

And it goes on and on...

~~~
Karunamon
1st, corruption is like "being a dick" in that you don't have to have been
found guilty of it in a court of law in order for it to be true.

2nd, corruption is corruption. Does it matter when? Before, during, after,
it's still sketchy as heck. Any judge in possession of their mental faculties
should think twice before creating the appearance of impropriety. I don't care
if it's an official course - find someone else!

3rd, and 4th, granted.

5th, Right, because having a link to a file (and nothing more!) is somehow
infringing anything. The affected server had no infringing content on it. I'd
be outraged too. The idea that search engines and other sites should have to
be censored despite not doing anything wrong is insane - equally insane is the
idea that I can construct an anchor tag that will get me in trouble with the
law.

Equally sketchy is the fact that this particular judge always seems to preside
over BREIN's cases.

That's two strikes, and he seems reeeeeaaallly eager for a third.

~~~
Someone
_"I don't care if it's an official course - find someone else!"_

If you read [http://webwereld.nl/nieuws/66177/ftd-vonnis-is--schokkend--
e...](http://webwereld.nl/nieuws/66177/ftd-vonnis-is--schokkend--en--
onhoudbaar-.html), you will learn that Arnout Engelfriet (who more or less
invented Internet law as a separate subject of study in the Netherlands)
states that he, in his role of council for the defense, did not think that the
judge needed replacement because the circle of Dutchmen knowledgeable of the
matter is so small that it is impossible to find a knowledgeable judge who
hasn't had some contact with someone from BREIN.

So, if you claim corruption, you should include mr. Engelfriet in it.

He disagrees with the rulings, too, but that is a different subject.

 _"equally insane is the idea that I can construct an anchor tag that will get
me in trouble with the law."_

Not all countries follow US law; freedom of speech carries lower weight in
some of them. For example, one cannot publish "Mein kampf" in the Netherlands
(AFAIK, the current stance is that a scientific edition might be legal)

~~~
Karunamon
Ahh, I didn't know that about Engelfriet, so thanks for the link. If there's
truly not that many judges, I suppose their hands are tied. Still, there's
that "Ehhhhhhh...." feeling associated with the whole thing, regardless. Some
of that is irrational.

As far as freedom of speech, I find the instance you mentioned to be equally
insane.. but given the choice between the USA and the Netherlands, I'll still
take the Netherlands (or almost any other European country) every time,
despite being a US citizen.

------
yaix
If that is indeed the same judge working together with the plaintif, then it
does still not proof corruption. But taking the case would have been highly
unethical. I really hope there will be an investigation into this.

~~~
mark_l_watson
A little off topic, but here in the USA Supreme Court judge Antonin Gregory
Scalia went on a vacation with Vice President Dick Cheney, shortly before
Cheney's case went before the Supreme Court.

I may be wrong about this, but when I was younger it seemed like corruption
was well hidden from public view, now the elites rub our faces in the fact
that they can get away with just about anything.

~~~
bediger4000
Clarence Thomas has the appearance of a much larger problem:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/us/politics/19thomas.html?...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/us/politics/19thomas.html?_r=2&hp)
[http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_01...](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_01/027655.php)
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/us/politics/15thomas.html>
[http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_02...](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_02/027850.php)

~~~
stfu
If I were the President, I would do exactly the same thing. Fact is, that
Supreme Court nominations are highly political motivated. You have in your
presidency one or maybe two chances to appoint a new judge.

That judge is going to sit there for about 20 years. As you see right now with
the upcoming supreme court decision on the healthcare issue, the decision is
most likely going to be made along the party lines, with most of the decision
power hanging on the mercy of a single judge. If you are the president and
have the ability to appoint/suggest a judge, you need to find someone that you
can rely on to keep his political leaning intact for the next 20 years.
Otherwise you are significantly reducing the chances to see your worldview
represented in the rulings for the next 20+ years. Sure, the process is
questionable, but I can completely understand that politicians see the
appointment of judges as a very strategic element, and therefore making it
necessary to keep them close. But apparently too close in some cases...

------
bediger4000
The Swedish Judge who found all the Pirate Bay people guilty was also
associated with a pro-copyright or pro-"Intellectual Property" organisation,
too: <http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/pirateconflict/>

To my (USA) mind, this seems like Enemy action, or a multi-national
conspiracy. In the USA, judges with this kind of appearance of bias would most
like recuse themselves, and if they didn't, one side or the other would try to
set up the whole case for an appeal later, and then appeal later with flags
waving and horns honking.

Why does this appearance of judicial bias occur so often in connection with
The Pirate Bay?

~~~
benologist
"Why does this appearance of judicial bias occur so often in connection with
The Pirate Bay?"

Because the internet's repeatedly not getting the answer they expect.
Apparently only a fool and a corrupt one at that could possibly consider TPB,
a site which everyone even marginally familiar with knows is devoted to piracy
and profiting off piracy ever second of every day, to have anything to do with
piracy! Also international conspiracy lol.

~~~
dchest
Your reply doesn't provide an answer to the question you quoted.

------
gouranga
When there is a singular person responsible for a decision, corruption is
inevitable. They are an easy target.

Judicial decisions should be taken by a council rather than an individual.

------
maurits
Misleading, unproven and sensationalistic.....

~~~
yaix
That sounds much like Richard Nixon when he first read about watergate.

Unproven and sensationalist it is, but how is it "misleading"?

~~~
maurits
"Found To Be Corrupt" suggest an official inquiry of some sorts. Not the
opinion of the author.

~~~
Falkvinge
Not exactly - in this case, a person on Twitter found a two-year-old article
showing that this particular judge was corrupt in copyright monopoly cases.
There is nothing denoting how "official" the conclusion is, not inherently in
the expression.

~~~
JoachimSchipper
In a juridical context, "found corrupt" means something like "a judge ruled
that X is corrupt". It's easy to think that that is what the headline says.

~~~
yaix
And in a technical context, it means that a data file produced a read error.

In a blog context, it means neither.

~~~
tveita
So what does "found to be corrupt" mean in a blog context? "Please sue me for
libel?" (Yes, I see the note. "I don't need journalistic integrity, I'm a
registered journalist!")

Good job on finding the other common meaning; you'll have noticed that a
search on "found to be corrupt" yields two meanings besides this article:
corrupted data, and findings of a court or investigation.

There are a lot of ways to phrase the headline that wouldn't make a reasonable
reader assume that this was an official ruling, e.g. "X is corrupt", "Why X is
corrupt", "Evidence that X is corrupt", "X alleged to be corrupt", or really
anything but "found to be".

The facts by themselves are interesting, but the headline I found misleading.

~~~
Natsu
> So what does "found to be corrupt" mean in a blog context?

It means that evidence indicating corruption has been found. Any other reading
puts words in their mouth.

------
rkb
Nothing on this is currently floating in the Dutch media, so probably not
worth the read.

~~~
yaix
You may want to send the link to the article to some newspapers in NL, maybe a
few will pick it up and investigate. If nobody tells the mainstream press,
they may just overlook it.

~~~
bashzor
Tweakers.net: Het artikel of de meukupdate op de link
'[http://falkvinge.net/2012/05/12/dutch-judge-who-ordered-
pira...](http://falkvinge.net/2012/05/12/dutch-judge-who-ordered-pirate-bay-
links-censored-found-to-be-corrupt) bevindt zich al in de queue. De link kan
niet nogmaals ingestuurd worden.

Translation: The article with the link [where this HN story leads to] is
already in the queue. The link cannot be sent in again.

~~~
MarkV
I don't find it likely that Tweakers is going to write a full article about
this. As on of their writers stated "a serious accusation and not very
convincing"

