blogpirate.org — Tomas Norström, the judge who presided over the Pirate Bay trial, has been accused of bias once again. After the trial against TPB he was accused of bias as he is well connected with quite a few different pro-copyright and intellectual property organizations. A retrial is one alternative for TPB, and this will be decided by a higher court later.
May 6, 2009 View in Crawl 4
keponeMay 7, 2009
Dude.. incase you missed it, the judge was on committee's with the prosecution's lawyer ( the people pressing charges against TPB ) before the trial.. he knew the woman, what's her face, Monique Wadsted beforehand, and had worked with her in the past. This is a direct conflict of interest since he was already biased toward one side before the trial even started, and it put TPB at a tremendous legal disadvantage before the trial even started, not due to any crime, simply due to the prosecution and judge possible working together- which is illegal in basically all countries. As someone said before, imagine if you were on trial for murder- and as it turns out, both the prosecuting lawyer and the judge were related to the murder victim. Do you think that would be a fair trial?
stickypenguinMay 7, 2009
...epic
angelbunnyMay 8, 2009
do you remember tpb raid a year or so back when their servers where obtained with no real reasoning beyond the mpaa and riaa forking over cash and threatening their gov to shut the site down without even due process?The person who instituted the entire thing from the ground up was that judge who ended up trying their case. biased? i think so.also, they where originally scheduled to see another judge but things got messy. you can use your imagination to fill out what happened there.
wooodlesMay 8, 2009
We don't hear more about it...in MSM...because the same people that control the mass media control these judges.They probably knew it would get out eventually, but they don't care, because the MSM viewers already believe that the "evil", "terrorist supporters" known as TPB lost against the all-good (always fair) legal system.
mymainmanMay 8, 2009
Hahaha!The similarities are striking!+1
debba99May 10, 2009
No. Judges are Attorneys politically appointed by the Executive branch of Gov't; politicially approved by the Legislative branch of Gov't. Attorneys are the 'least'professional group with Integrity. More and More Attorneys have entered in PublicOffice rewriting laws and making new laws to tax, fine and send citizens to programsall feeding State coffers while 'controlling' and oppressing the American citizenand taxpayers These Legislative Attorneys are also allowed to practice Law in thesame courts they have political influence over the court/Judges: and their cronies.Laws have been changed giving Judges 'broad discretionary' authority to deny evidence and due process of law for bias, favoritism, and political cronyism. Appeals are very costly and time consuming. Appellat Court Judges only review thelower court's (judges') decisions/judgments for 'error of law' in the Judgment. Theydo not review the evidence even if evidence was suppressed unjustly by the lowercourt Judges as these Judges are GIVEN 'integrity' to review all the evidence andmake a fair and just decision. This is not happening in our courtrooms across thecountry. Courts are corrupted by politics and cronyism. Judges are Attorneysfirst and are NOT put on the Bench for their Integrity; they are political pawns,their alliance with their Legal Profession, and their broad descretionary authorityafforded to them by their crony Legislative Attorney's allows them to obstruct Justiceat will. The Judicial Review Boards are politically appointed and statistics revealthis 'secret' review process punishes Judges 'caught red handed' by slapping themon the wrist in less than 1% of Judicial Complaints and these are often pursued byMedia and public outrage.Appellat Courts are presided over by Judges appointed and appoved by the politicalprocess. Polticans are not working for the publics best interests; they are workingfor their own interets and the interests of Government.