Dotcom calls out John Banks in open letter
Kim Dotcom has hit back at John Banks following his discharge last month in the donations saga, by penning an open letter.
The Court of Appeal ruled former ACT MP John Banks would be acquitted of charges that said Banks falsely declared donations from the internet entrepreneur were anonymous back in 2010.
Following the acquittal, Dotcom published the open letter, which begins, "your claims of lies and threats: it's time to go on the record.
"I have seen your Court of Appeal decision and note that you have been discharged and the reasons for this. I too have been a victim of prosecutorial misconduct and am confident I will be vindicated," Dotcom states.
Dotcom tells Banks he is "concerned by your comments that I and others have lied and that I stated that if you would not assist my release from prison, I will destroy you.
Dotcom disputes he threatened to destroy Banks. "You know that I never threatened you. If I had made such a threat, which I did not, it could only have been through the Prison phone system. You know that all prisoner phone calls are recorded. No such statement has been made by me to you and you know this.
Dotcom says he never lied about his meeting with Banks at his mansion, where he says Banks asked for a donation.
"What you were not prepared to admit, at that time or since, was only that you had asked me to make two separate donations or the amounts," Dotcom explains. "I made the donation in the way you requested, as you knew I would as a result of our discussion." He adds, "I am sure that most people will wonder how anyone would come to write two cheques without a request to do so, when one would be enough.
Dotcom says his only recourse to Banks' assertions would be defamation proceedings.
However, Dotcom says proceedings would take a fair amount of time, and offers Banks an alternative. "What I suggest is that an independent interviewer be provided with all the relevant evidence and then with an opportunity to interview both of us about what took place."
"If you decline the offer to go on the record, but persist in making such statements, the public will have all they need to know who is speaking the truth.
The letter
John Banks, Your claims of lies and threats: it's time to go on the record I have seen your Court of Appeal decision and note that you have been discharged and the reasons for this. I too have been a victim of prosecutorial misconduct and am confident I will be vindicated. However, I am concerned by your comments that I and others have lied and that I stated that if you would not assist my release from prison, I will destroy you. While you may be celebrating the conclusion of this prosecution and seeking to place yourself in the best light possible, you know these comments are not true. At your press conference yesterday you said: "The witnesses told bare-faced lies, innuendo and half-truths in the knowledge that they came to court to destroy me. "The judgment speaks volumes about Kim Dotcom. He was the man that told me 'If you don't help me get out of jail, I'll destroy you. I'll f**king destroy you. He gave it his best shot and lost. He gave it his best shot and lost." I have never lied about our meeting at the mansion where you asked for a donation and I agreed. In fact in your police interview, played in court, you admitted a meeting took place, and admitted that you asked for a donation and that I said I would give you a donation. What you were not prepared to admit, at that time or since, was only that you had asked me to make two separate donations or the amounts. I made the donation in the way you requested, as you knew I would as a result of our discussion. The reasons I was prepared to do so were given in court. Irrespective of your claim about not asking me to do this, I am sure that most people will wonder how anyone would come to write two cheques without a request to do so, when one would be enough. Or how it could come about that the cheques I wrote out were identical in the amount to other "anonymous" donations you received. I do not think that anyone can credibly claim that this was a coincidence, not even you. Your claim that I would "destroy you" if you didn't assist me to get out of prison is also false. You know that I never threatened you. If I had made such a threat, which I did not, it could only have been through the prison phone system. You know that all prisoner phone calls are recorded. No such statement has been made by me to you and you know this. You know that if you continue to assert that I have lied, when I have not, and to make it appear as though you have been set up, when you haven't, my only recourse would be defamation proceedings. This would take time and in the meantime you would claim that I am not to be believed. Some people may choose to blindly believe you. In the meantime I have to endure this continued conduct. I do not think this is fair given I have been drawn into this case. I have a better idea and one that is more immediate. One that will allow the public you seek to deceive to make a judgment call right now about your credibility and mine. If you want to persist in claiming that I have lied, then I am more than prepared to go on the record again to confirm what happened and why, as I have already in my police statements and on oath in court. You should take the opportunity of doing the same, given that you chose not to at your trial. You have repeatedly claimed that you have nothing to fear and nothing to hide. Well, you can now prove it. You refused to give evidence on oath in the District Court, or at your High Court trial, or during the appeal. What I suggest is that an independent interviewer be provided with all the relevant evidence and then with an opportunity to interview both of us about what took place. This can be recorded or live. Other journalists could be present and take part. If you do not want to take up this offer, despite what you are saying, then you may wish to retract your comments. I will then accept that and we can move on. If you decline the offer to go on the record, but persist in making such statements, the public will have all they need to know who is speaking the truth. Kim Dotcom.
