I assume, as one does, that all judges in the West are irredeemably corrupt, but I may have been unfair to the judge in the Meng Wanzhou case, who terrified the Americans in mid August when she demonstrated clear signs that she saw through their trickery: "Judge doesn't 'understand' US allegations against Huawei CFO" (Li) (first, how is a Chinese business leader supposed to be able to keep track of what is 'bad' Iran business, as set down by the Khazars to their American stooges each morning?; my emphasis throughout in red):
"The US allegations against Meng Wanzhou are unclear, a Canadian judge said during the Huawei executive's extradition hearing.
Asking how the US addressed the allegations in the record of the case (ROC) supplied to Canadian authorities, Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes of the British Columbia Supreme Court — who will decide whether or not Meng can be extradited to the US — said Wednesday that it was difficult to understand the allegations.
Holmes questioned Robert Frater, lawyer for the Canadian attorney general, whether the US had explained the essence of the crime it alleged Meng had committed — and in particular, its connection to sanctions against Iran.
"I've had great difficulty understanding what is about the commercial dealings of Huawei on one hand and Skycom on the other that is said to have engaged US sanctions," said Holmes. "What I don't understand is whether the simple fact of dealing with the government in Iran would be viewed as offside sanctions."
Frater replied that it is clear there is "good" Iran business and "not good" Iran business.
"Can you show me that in the ROC?" the judge asked.
"There isn't a clear statement of what's on either side of the line in the ROC. But it does describe how financial services go offside," Frater replied. "It's the export of financial services, dollar-clearing in particular. The ROC deals with what is generally said to be illegal. What is not said is what is generally found to be legal."
The judge said she has been troubled by the issue.
"What I'm trying to get at is how does the ROC make all of that clear? That certain things engage sanctions and other things don't. Because it's only with that background that one can assess what's said in the PowerPoint as to whether it was deceptive," said Holmes."
and (secondly, internal inconsistencies in John Bolton's case):
"She is accused of misrepresenting the Chinese telecom company's relationship with Skycom in a PowerPoint presentation to HSBC in 2013 and putting the bank at risk of violating US sanctions against Iran. Meng and Huawei have repeatedly denied the accusations.
The meeting between Meng and HSBC was arranged after Reuters published articles suggesting Skycom, which it said had "close ties" with Huawei, was violating sanctions. Holmes expressed "skepticism" several times that HSBC was truly put at risk by Meng's presentation after it received a clear warning of sanctions violations in the Reuters reports, according to The Globe and Mail.
The judge also asked about possible contradictions in Frater's summary of the case against Meng, that she told HSBC there was no risk of sanctions violations from Huawei or Skycom while failing to disclose the true relationship between the two companies.
"There are three alleged false messages. I wonder whether two of them are not inconsistent with each other," said the judge. "As I understand your theory, a false assurance that the bank had nothing to worry about as far as sanctions went (was) because they could assure Skycom was in compliance.
"Doesn't that run counter to the theory that she falsely misrepresented that Huawei didn't control Skycom? How would she be able to give that assurance of compliance in a convincing way unless Huawei was in control of Skycom?" asked Holmes.
"We see no conflict between that and the attempt to distance Skycom from Huawei. It's all about conveying a message of no risk," replied Frater.
"I suppose I'm wondering whether it's reasonable to assume that an international bank would rely on an assurance from one person about compliance by other companies not under Huawei's direct control," the judge continued.
"It's clear Meng said we do business in Iran. And it's clear HSBC continues to do business with Huawei. That's fundamental. But is Meng the one reasonably to advise HSBC on dollar-clearing?" Holmes asked.
"No, but she has to convey a message and information they can use to make the determination. She said they are complying with all sanctions, and that Skycom is compliant," Frater replied."
The judge is exhibiting a rather steely intelligence here in shredding the inconsistencies in John Bolton's case, and the lawyer hired to represent John Bolton - and thus the Khazars (remember this is all about Iran) - isn't smart enough to keep up to defend his positions. To be fair to him, the Bolton/Khazar position is a pile of self-contradictions. Remember, as with cancel culture, which leads to self-censoring, the ultimate goal of all book burners, and knowledge haters, Sanctions For The Jews is supposed to lead to companies abandoning all commercial ties to Iran, on the basis that nobody can figure what the Khazars will instruct their American stooges to do in any given case. This one is a Bolton two-fer, as he gets to attack China while earning his daily ration of sweet, sweet, shekels.
Also: "
Canada, China and US were all doomed to lose in Meng Wanzhou’s case" (Wintour):
Indeed, at a hearing in August, the judge in the case said that the case against Meng seemed very unusual. No one lost money, the allegations were several years old, and the intended victim, a global bank, knew the truth even as it was allegedly being lied to.
Heather Holmes, associate chief justice, asked: “Isn’t it unusual that one will see a fraud case with no actual harm many years later? And one in which the alleged victim, a large institution, appears to have had numerous people within the institution who had all the facts that are now said to be misrepresented?”"
Once the judge proved she was no fool, and not a complete tool of the Empire, the Americans started to look for a relatively face-saving way of extracting themselves.
The Canadian Maxwell Smart's are clearly suggesting that the 'two Michaels' were indeed Canadian spies, as the Chinese have been insisting (
also):
Were they actually spies, are the Canadians just trying to mess with the Chinese, are they trying to take credit for something they are not competent enough to do, or is this just a stunt? It reminds me of the smart-ass tweets of the Mossad. Admitting that these guys were in fact spies just paints a bullseye on every other Canadian in China, and CSIS is dumb enough that they may in fact have made the admission that they are running a spy network in China.
Here's the Americans, boasting about their face-saving deal: "
Huawei CFO Wanzhou Meng Admits to Misleading Global Financial Institution":
"Under the terms of the DPA, Meng has agreed to the accuracy of a four-page statement of facts that details the knowingly false statements she made to Financial Institution 1. Meng also has agreed not to commit other federal, state or local crimes. If Meng breaches the agreement, she will be subject to prosecution of all the charges against her in the third superseding indictment filed in this case."
Of course, the 'facts' are meaningless, as none of them address the legal and logical problems with John Bolton's case, problems raised by the Canadian judge, who is the real hero here (certainly not Trudeau, who must bear responsibility for this entire mess, including every second spent in jail by the 'two Michaels', who should have quietly told him to fuck off on the tarmac at his
photo-op).
Posts
