US Continues To Try To Block Megaupload From Using Its Lawyers, Pretends It Has Jurisdiction Over The World

from the not-quite-how-it-works dept

Following some filings by Megaupload’s lawyers in the US, the US Attorneys office has shot back, asking the court to deny all of the company’s requests. And, it goes even further than that: seeking to deny Megaupload the ability to use the topnotch lawyers it hired. This part is not new. Back in April, it sought to block Megaupload from hiring Andrew Schapiro from Quinn Emanuel, arguing that there’s a “conflict of interest” because the DOJ argues that YouTube is a “victim” of Megaupload and could be a witness — and Schapiro has represented and continues to represent YouTube in the Viacom case. Quinn Emanuel has also done some work for Hollywood. The thing is, big law firms like Quin Emanuel have a pretty detailed process to check for conflicts of interest, and assuming that Quinn Emanuel and its clients are okay with things, then how is it the government’s place to complain other than out of some sort of childish desire to deny Megaupload the best legal representation it can find. The more we view the DOJ’s actions in this and related cases, the more it becomes clear that they have a tendency to act like a bunch of little playschool children in these sorts of legal fights.

Separately, the government tries to reject the argument that Megaupload has made — and which a New Zealand US judge has found compelling — that for criminal proceeding to take place against a foreign company, that company needs to be served. However, since the law only allows for service on US addresses, Megaupload reasonably argues that it cannot be served (note: this only applies to the company as a defendant — the individuals who were charged separately are a different issue). But the government argues this is crazy talk, and it’s main argument is basically just to claim that such a reading of the law is absurd… and to say that it’s fine to serve company officials once they’re extradited to the US. In other words: “we’re the US, bitch, and as long as we can extradite people here, we can sue their companies too, so shut up.” The sense of entitlement in being able to bring criminal charges against foreign entities is astounding.

The US Attorneys also play some games with the filing itself, claiming that Megaupload cannot make such filings until the defendants appear in the court. In fact, they claim that by fighting extradition, Megauploads’ execs count as “fugitives” from the law, and thus cannot file motions with the court. Of course, that’s ridiculous. The whole point of filing these motions is to help show that the entire case is frivolous and that the extradition requests are excessive and unnecessary. For the US to respond to that by saying that such arguments can only be made after extradition is an argument that makes no sense. It’s basically saying that they can only fight extradition after they’ve been extradited.

All in all, the arguments here are similar to the DOJ’s arguments against letting Megaupload users get back their data. Basically, the DOJ was insanely over aggressive in shutting down Megaupload, creating a huge mess… Now, it’s lashing out at anyone who seeks to fix a small piece of the mess, basically by saying that the mess has nothing to do with the DOJ’s own actions.

Honestly, from the outside looking in, it sure looks like the DOJ is realizing just how weak its case is here, and is simply lashing out at anyone it can.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: megaupload, quinn emanuel, viacom, youtube

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “US Continues To Try To Block Megaupload From Using Its Lawyers, Pretends It Has Jurisdiction Over The World”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
49 Comments
phildem (profile) says:

Re: The US has troops stationed in over 100 nations

Tangental, but an interesting observation, I’ve heard stories from co-workers arriving in North America from different continents, how U.S. bases pay for everything with stacks of cash.

As though the military bases are part of the strategy for keeping the greenback in circulation. Military money laundering…This attitude that the unipolar world is the U.S’ playground is pretty well ensconced in foreign policy.

The DOJ acting in this manner is not really surprising.

Anonymous Coward says:

Some ‘interesting’ arguments here from the US, including:

To do business with anyone in the united states, you must have an agent in the U.S.

Quinn Emanuel would have to get a signed waiver from basically every company it represents, including Disney and i assume the MPAA, that allows them to defend MU.

It’s not fair that MU can hire multiple teams of lawyers to file motions in different courts at the same time. (I assume Hong Kong, New Zealand, and US courts)

and the best one, where they basically say “nuh-uh” to MU’s complaint that they are fusing criminal and civil copyright law… in a footnote.

Anonymous Coward says:

However, since the law only allows for service on US addresses, Megaupload reasonably argues that it cannot be served (note: this only applies to the company as a defendant — the individuals who were charged separately are a different issue).

As long as they get your fellow Jenny Craig dropout, it shouldn’t matter too much.

Anonymous Coward says:

basically, the DoJ has made a MEGA fuck up here. not only that, but it is saying that it has jurisdiction over everyone everywhere, regardless of what the laws are in countries outside the US. it is also saying that no one is allowed to have legal representation if it is going to be better than their own legal team can present. if this goes through, no one is going to be safe from US laws. the only thing with that is, be careful USA, this type of ‘i can do what i want, where i want to whomever i want can easily come back and bite you severely in the arse. think about a reversal whereby another country wants to do the same thing to a US citizen. it wont be pretty!! you need to look nearer to home for the real solution instead of blaming everyone else and keep molly coddling a bunch purely self-interested arse holes who dont even care for the US

DogBreath says:

Just a precursor....

For the US to respond to that by saying that such arguments can only be made after extradition is an argument that makes no sense. It’s basically saying that they can only fight extradition after they’ve been extradited.

Next they’ll be saying, “You can only fight your sentence of death after you have been executed.”

Pjerky (profile) says:

So I am getting confused here. Is the Department of Justice separate from the Judicial Branch? The name is very misleading if it is. Also then you refer to the government, yet both of the aforementioned entities are part of the government. Just seems awkward, convoluted, and confusing.

That said, the Attorney General Eric Holder should be fired and disbarred for all of his actions while in office/power. He clearly doesn’t care about the law or justice. Its obvious that he is just bending over backwards for his Hollywood butt-buddies.

Kenneth Michaels (profile) says:

errors

Also, the article reads, “the court argues that YouTube is a ‘victim’ of Megaupload and could be a witness.” It should read that *the government* argues to the court that YouTube is a victim of Megaupload.

Further, the article reads that a “New Zealand judge has found compelling — that for criminal proceeding to take place against a foreign company, that company needs to be served.” I think that should say that a US Judge has found this point compelling. The link provided relates to the reaction of the US judge, not the NZ judge. I have not heard anywhere that the NZ judge made any comment on this point. Could be wrong though, do let me know if I am.

Rikuo (profile) says:

I do have one genuine thought about all of this.

It is clear to anybody with a working brain that the Department of Justice’s arguments make absolutely no sense and that they have clearly already broken at least several laws (referring to the fact they copied several of DotCom’s personal hard drives and took the copies out of New Zealand, before the extradition process had been finished).
When the DoJ feels like they can act this brazen, make clearly bullshit arguments that no-one can believe…why bother? What’s stopping them from saying “Ah fuck it, let’s just shoot the tubby bastard and call it a day”.

Zos (profile) says:

Re:

not actually an issue for the most part. We have a way of signing treaties that are slanted all our way. Ask that poor bastard getting extradited from england for running a filesharing service. Or marc Emery.

The backlash, if and when it comes, will be from the citizens of these nations toward the governments that have bent over for america and signed all these non reciprocal treaties.

:Lobo Santo (profile) says:

Naming Scheme

You’ve got it backwards.

Here’s how government naming schemes work:
Federal Reserve; neither “Federal” nor “Reserve”–not a part of government at all.
Ministry of Truth; does not tell the truth.
Department of Justice; does not deliver justice.

You see how it goes, right?

Among career politicians (et al), the only way you’ll hear the truth from them is when the accidentally tell it.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re:

referring to the fact they copied several of DotCom’s personal hard drives and took the copies out of New Zealand, before the extradition process had been finished

I actually looked into that and don’t think that’s as big of an issue. In that case, the government’s argument actually does make sense. They weren’t allowed to bring physical goods out of the country, but making some copies of data for others to see? That’s fair.

If you believe that copyright isn’t property then you shouldn’t really have an issue with this…

Kenneth Michaels (profile) says:

Re: Copying the evidence

Mike,

Regarding the DOJ/FBI copying Dotcom’s data, the FBI/DOJ should not be able to receive even copies of *irrelevant*, *personal* information about Kim Dotcom BEFORE the conclusion of the extradition hearing, if ever. The personal, irrelevant information about a NZ citizen should be protected against an intruding foreign power before the conclusion of the extradition hearing. Otherwise, the US could just bring charges against any NZ citizen and seize all their personal, irrelevant information without any protection for the NZ citizen by the NZ government. That is just wrong. That is what is going to sting the FBI/DOJ.

In this case, it is the information that needs to be protected, whether a copy or not.

Ken

Gwiz (profile) says:

YouTube as a Witness ??

Back in April, it sought to block Megaupload from hiring Andrew Schapiro from Quinn Emanuel, arguing that there’s a “conflict of interest” because the court argues that YouTube is a “victim” of Megaupload and could be a witness…

This argument confuses me. How exactly would YouTube be a victim? A victim of what? Someone converting a YouTube video and putting it on Mega? YouTube wouldn’t be the rights holder anyways.

Seems like the DoJ is completely clueless about what YouTube does or they are just making shit up to prevent Dotcom from mounting a defense. Either way it doesn’t reflect well on the DoJ.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Hi Mike, you might want to look into it again – the point is only partly about them copying data and not taking the physical evidence. The more serious problem is that they have done so, AFTER having been informed by the presiding judge that NO evidence in any form should leave the country until a court hearing has taken place. The New Zealand Herald has an article about that. The other issue is that they have no intention to give the defence any access to the eidence whatsoever, in spite of the NZ judge’s hearing. All of it surely looks like contempt of court to me…

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

YouTube as a Witness ??

This argument confuses me. How exactly would YouTube be a victim? A victim of what? Someone converting a YouTube video and putting it on Mega? YouTube wouldn’t be the rights holder anyways.

In the indictment there are reports that Kim told his staff to literally copy everything on YouTube and put it on MegaVideo. They basically tried to clone all of YouTube…

DanZee (profile) says:

Typical Tactics

All lawyers file these kind of motions. Every defense lawyer will file a motion to dismiss every charge against his client, the prosecution will counter with every argument they can make. It’s all just typical stuff.

However, if you make too many ridiculous arguments, a judge will get angry at you and it could taint your whole case. So I say to the US attorneys, keep it up! Get the judge angry at you and he might toss the whole case!

Chargone (profile) says:

Re:

given that they apparently passed a law to the effect of ‘citizens of the US may not be extradited to anywhere, ever, and fuck all those reciprocal extradition agreements that we’re STILL holding the other party to despite this.’…

probably not.

(i may, of course, be misremembering, but that’s the impression i have from a number of things i have read.)

Digitari says:

Re:

So, when are the freedom loving forces of the world going to help the US citizen become free, How much bogus crap is going to be allowed?

This is just ONE of the things this Government has done, and done badly, it seems voting is not working, so whats next?

Instead of talking about symptoms, can we start talking about cures?

It appears “Rome” is burning, but they have outlawed fire extinguishers..

(vote the blank)

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...