FBI Continues To Insist There's No Reason For Kim Dotcom To Be Able To See The Evidence Against Him

from the of-course-not dept

We already noted that the New Zealand judicial system apparently isn’t as willing as the US expected to rubberstamp approval of the extradition of Kim Dotcom. Part of that ruling was a requirement that the US turn over the evidence they’re using against Dotcom, so that he can counter it in fighting against the extradition. However, it appears that the US is still fighting this, having the New Zealand prosecutor (who is fighting on their behalf) argue that Dotcom should only be allowed to see a single document out of the 22 million emails the FBI collected and that this really isn’t a matter for the New Zealand courts to concern themselves with, as they should just let the Americans handle it.

Crown lawyer John Pike argued that there was no need for Dotcom to have access because he was not being tried in New Zealand.

The judge in the extradition case needed only to decide if there was a case for him to answer in the US, Mr Pike said, and that question was answered by the record of case.

That’s kind of amazing when you think about it. He shouldn’t be allowed to even see the evidence against him… even if it might prove that there is no “case for him to answer to in the US.” That’s what’s so troubling about the US position on cases like this one and the O’Dwyer/TVshack case. They seem to assume that it shouldn’t be of any concern if they drag someone thousands of miles across oceans to face trumped up charges in the US.

Filed Under: , , , ,

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 “FBI Continues To Insist There's No Reason For Kim Dotcom To Be Able To See The Evidence Against Him”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
156 Comments
Alana (profile) says:

Evidence? That’s crazy talk. Stop treating it like they actually HAVE evidence. It’s not like they’re not trying to bury all the so-called evidence until he’s been extradited after all, then the US is gonna have their way with him, legal or not.

If this case were clear-cut, they’d have presented the evidence already to get him to be extradited. There’s no way that could work out badly for them. If the evidence is strong enough to request extradition, then all they’d have to do is present it, right?

Jamie says:

Re: Re:

Well said. I’m absolutely sick and disgusted with the way the US acts as if they own the world, especially when it comes to the internet.

Bankers worldwide cost us all billions of dollars and have debased the quality of life for not just the current generation but possible the next two as well. Yet not one has been arrested… meanwhile someone operating a legal business (Even according to the US definitions, IE safe harbour) is hounded out of business by a government hat may have been coerced by big business and is too dishonourable and weak to even present their own evidence!

Gutless, and makes me more and more cynical about America as a country.

Androgynous Cowherd says:

Hello, Sixth Amendment?

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

This has been interpreted as including the right to confront, or have defense expert witnesses examine, the evidence against one when accused by the US Government of a crime.

Ed C. says:

Re: Hello, Sixth Amendment?

Haven’t you heard? Under the BFG Act, foreign nationals are subject to all punishments under US law, but have absolutely none of the rights. What, you haven’t here of the BFG Act!? It’s the international law stating we have the Biggest Fucking Guns so we can Act however we want. Don’t worry about the details, our “peacekeepers” and stealth drones will explain it all to you in the near future.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Hello, Sixth Amendment?

Copyright has both civil and criminal penalties.

The ones we always hear about with the MPAA/RIAA, suing grandmas and babies, are usually civil.

This one is being run as a criminal charge, which has a higher bar (Yet the government is putting together even a weaker case the the RIAA usually tries.)

We just need them to higher Carrion, he can dig their case even faster into the ground. Who knows, he might end up being able to tunnel right through to New Zealand and they can just grab Kim. =P

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Hello, Sixth Amendment?

1) He’s not an american citizen
2) He’s not prosecuted, he’s being extradited
3) While being extradited, he’s under New Zealand law. Obviously we have similar rules as well, but your constitution has nothing to do with it.

I completely support your view – that he should see what little evidence they have. I just don’t think your reasoning is correct.

TL;DR Right Answer Wrong Working

Androgynous Cowherd says:

Re: Re: Hello, Sixth Amendment?

It’s the US Government going after him. US due process rules should apply. IOW, it’s the government that’s bound by the Sixth Amendment, not Dotcom, and it’s that same government whose action of concealing evidence is contrary to that Amendment.

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Hello, Sixth Amendment?

Actually New Zealand’s Procedural Fairness rules & principles should apply and actually according to the New Zealand High Court DO apply.

Procedural Fairness (or natural justice as some call it) is far more than your 6th Amendment and conveys more rights and abilities on the accused then it ever will.

Sadly the US denies that Procedural Fairness exists and hypocritically only wants it when it applies to them.

RadialSkid (profile) says:

Re: Re: Hello, Sixth Amendment?

American Constitutional law applies to anyone on American soil, not just American citizens…the “rights” outlined in the document are considered to be inalienable to all people, it’s only America’s sovereignty as a nation (obviously) that keeps said rights from being enforced worldwide.

chilehead (profile) says:

Re: Re: Hello, Sixth Amendment?

The amendments of the constitution apply to the US government, not people. They are limits on the power of the government with respect to “the people”, not “citizens” – so everyone should be protected from the US by them equally, regardless of what nation they call their own. The only time the constitution is irrelevant is when the US government is not involved in any way.

It’s pretty outrageous that the US is trying to charge someone living in another nation with breaking its laws, when that person was never in the US at the time of the alleged violations. It’s a violation of laws in India and Saudi Arabia for me to make statements about Jesus and Mohammed being gay, pork-eating lovers that invented their respective religions as a practical joke, yet you don’t see either of those nations trying to have me extradited from the US to face justice in those countries. Why should the converse be true?

Anonymous Coward says:

so, according to the US, if they charge someone with a crime, it doesn’t matter what the crime is, where the person lives, whether the crime was committed on US soil or what ‘evidence’ they may or may not have, every country in the world is just supposed to accept what they say? the person(s) charged are supposed to accept that they have done wrong and allow themselves to be dragged to the US to stand trial and not even know what evidence is going to be used against them and cannot, therefore, present any sort of defense? local courts are supposed to forgo their own legal system to accommodate the US demands, even if that means the person charged could be given a long/life prison sentence, even executed but could easily be innocent of all charges? WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE? Dotcom may be guilty of something, but everyone has to know what the charges and evidence being used is and allowed to defend themselves!

fcsuper (user link) says:

Re: It's bad, but not that bad

Once on trial in the US, he would be confronted with the evidence. The FBI is trying to use a technicality to get around the constitution because extradition trial isn’t happening in the US nor by US courts. However, New Zealand law should protect it’s citizens. The New Zealand prosecutor should be impeached or fired or whatever it is they do in N.Z. to prosecutors for violating their citizen’s rights.

TtfnJohn (profile) says:

Re: Re: It's bad, but not that bad, oh yes it is.

The Crown attorney is doing his job which, as a part of the New Zealand government was involved in and executed the raid and seizures. You can’t dismiss a barrister for doing the job they were assigned to do by the Government nor can the judge remove them from the case. Dotcom’s lawyer (barrister) is doing his job as well.

All that said if the only disclosure the New Zealand Government and American government, in this case, want to make is a single cherry picked document which in 99.99999% of extradition requests isn’t sufficient evidence to determine if there is a legitimate case for Dotcom to face should he be extradited to the United States.

The court in New Zealand wants more. Particularly as, now, the warrants for the entire operation have been ruled illegal. No court in the United States would do less during an extradition hearing.

In fact, in many cases and if the request had come from any other country, that would be it, case closed, go back home Kim and have a beer. That may be the result anyway if this silliness keeps up.

The FBI is looking more and more as if it doesn’t have a legitimate case civil or criminal.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: It's bad, but not that bad, oh yes it is.

The first duty of the Crown Attorny should be to New Zealand. Any assistance given to foreign governments under treaties should not be allowed to usurp the duty of the Crown Attorny to New Zealand.

It’s not ok for the Crown Attorny to argue on behalf of a foreign entity, that any judicial process of review in New Zealand ought to in fact be reduced to a rubber stamping ritual. It is abhorrent and unacceptable for our Crown Attorny to effectively argue to weaken the rule of law in New Zealand, least of all to give effect to a treaty to assist a foreign government.

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

If that is the case (as it seems to be more and more every passing day) I for one will be proud to classify myself as a terrorist and scream it from the rooftops whilst watching America crumble into its own crapulence, though I will be sad for it’s intelligent and reasonable people who don’t deserve what their own government (And corporate cronies) are doing to the once amazing and intriguing nation

Anonymous Coward says:

For the purposes of extradition, the case doesn’t have to be tried in NZ. What the judges are doing there is attempting to get the US to reveal all of the evidence in their case, which is not required for an extradition.

What it looks like mostly is an activist judge trying to play god, rather than someone paying attention to the law and the extradition treaties that NZ has signed.

Chargone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

amusingly, the Prime Minister was, at some point, trying to abdicate responsibility for that and say that our government had no need to investigate what the HELL happened there because it was the US’s problem.

that’s right, somehow the US government is supposed to investigate how and why NZ officials (apparantly :P) broke NZ law in the pursuit of the interests of the US government (well, it’s puppet-masters at least)

needless to say, that didn’t really fly with the general public. (well, lots of people figure the USG should be the one’s PAYING for it, but that’s a different story.)

Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“By definition, being charged with a crime, one that has enough material to justify such a charge, should be more than enough.”

Actually, no. Not even remotely correct. Because you can be charged with just about anything. And you can be held for up to 24 hours on said charge. However, that DOES NOT mean there is any evidence to convict you of said charge, much less that you actually did what you’re being charged with.

Just because you’re charged with something doesn’t even remotely mean they have enough material to justify said charge. Sorry to inform you.

You’re basically saying, “Hey, take the United States word for it and just let him go.” That is as horrible a stance as just assuming guilt.

Also, I’m no lawyer. But it appears I, not one, have a better grasp of the way the law works than yourself and some of the ACs here. Then again, my dad always did say gotta know the law if you want to break the law. Not that I’ve broken any mind you. ๐Ÿ˜‰

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“ctually, no. Not even remotely correct. Because you can be charged with just about anything. And you can be held for up to 24 hours on said charge. However, that DOES NOT mean there is any evidence to convict you of said charge, much less that you actually did what you’re being charged with.”

Yes, and you have just proven that you entirely do not get the point. The case is NOT being tried in New Zealand. Extradition treaties basically just say “Yes, we have charged him with a crime, and yes, that crime is over the threshold for extradition”. There really isn’t much more than that.

Why do you keep thinking the case is being tried in NZ?

The eejit (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Okay then, wiseass: Why should Dotcom be charged at all? There is no utilitarian value in charging Dotcom, there is not really any financial incentive to, and there is no legal rationale in NZ under which there could BE a crime committed. All this is doing is radicalising a whole generation against the concept of IP.

Great job, Feebs!

Josh in CharlotteNC (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Extradition treaties basically just say “Yes, we have charged him with a crime, and yes, that crime is over the threshold for extradition”.

You don’t see a problem with that? That a foreign government can just declare that someone has broken their laws (even though that person wasn’t in the country), demand extradition, without providing any evidence or being required to present adaquate reasons?

Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

I know the case isn’t being tried in New Zealand. I also very much get the point. I responded exactly in accordance with what you said. You said nothing about New Zealand or the U.S. Here let me refresh your memory:

“By definition, being charged with a crime, one that has enough material to justify such a charge, should be more than enough.

After all, this isn’t some kangaroo court in a third world country.”

Look at my response. Now look again at your original comment. Now look at my response again. See how that works? I responded ONLY to what you said and factually as it relates to what you said. Thus, the one not getting the point here is you. Notice how I didn’t even remotely mention New Zealand? You might want to check your responses before you hit “Submit”. Make sure you’re replying to the right person, or make sure you make sense and aren’t putting words in people’s mouths.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

By inference, when you say “just let him go” you are looking at it from the NZ point of view.

Quite simply, Kim is charged with very serious crimes, specifically money laundering of much of the $150 million he claims the site took in.

This isn’t some simple infringement case.

NZ has few options, unless they want to ignore treaties they have signed.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

It does not matter what the allegations are unless they fail to meet the threshold for extradition. You’re talking complete nonsense.

Whether you are charged with shoplifting or murder, or multi million dollar money laundering, due process applies if you are in a civilized part of the world.

The notion that rights go bye bye based on what someone alleges you’ve done is insanity. Anyone can be accused of anything at any time, so either rights and due process applies regardless of the nature of charges or there are no rights and there is no due processes.

A number of nations appear to have forgotten this since 9/11. A point of pride for the scummy terrorists no doubt.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

when, oh when will people finally understand that the money laundering is wholly dependent on the secondary copyright infrngement claim? Do you even know what is referred to by said “money laundering”? Paying Carphatia (and I’m not even joking). This case works like this: declare secondary infringement a criminal offence (which it isn’t) –> AS A RESULT declare normal business transactions to be money luandering, racketeering etc of what is now a supposed illegal shell for a company –> attempt to extradite on money laundering, racketeering etc charges. Once a company is declared criminal, all and every financial transactions with third parties are declared to be money laundering.

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Cheney has been charged with Crimes against Humanity…. Don’t see him, or his cohorts (which includes Ex president Bush), being extradited from the US anytime soon do we??

I wonder why?

And NZ can ignore treaties with the US at any time, what do you really think the US can do rto them? Economic sanctions? BWahahahahahahaha. Oh and NZ ignore’s an ANZUS treaty every day, never seen a Nuclear Warship in NZ waters for years!

Danny (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Money laundering is one of the more funny things Dotcom is charged with.

Money laundering is where a criminal organisation makes money ‘legal’ by pedalling through a legal business and in the process disguising where the money came from.

For the charge to make sense he has to have received all of the $150 million by illegal means. Then he also has to have moved the money back into his own possession using some external company in order to hide where it came from.

For starters the vast majority of stuff available on Megaupload has been proven to be non infringing, or rather they have failed to prove that it is infringing. Secondly his company was selling a service and not files so the first point is irrelevant anyway.

The company is also very open about their profits, that is how they come to $150 million. So them ‘laundering’ any of it is a joke.

I tell you what, I am accusing you of money laundering. I’m gonna extradite your ass over hear so I can kick it!

Metoo says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

If they cannot convince a New Zealand court that this is a legitimate charge then there is no grounds for extradition. There is no criminal copyright infringement in New Zealand. Only civil infringement, so that’s not grounds for extradition.

This is probably why they’ve added these….colourful charges to the mix.

Ed C. says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Extradition treaties basically just say “Yes, we have charged him with a crime, and yes, that crime is over the threshold for extradition”. There really isn’t much more than that.

Again, the accused has the right to challenge the extradition. Dotcom is in fact challenging the extradition.

A judge would then have to decide if the request for extradition does in fact meet the legal requirements. This is why the judge is demanding the US show evidence to validate their claims of criminal activity and that it has legal standing for extradition.

If the US cannot make a case for extradition, the judge is well within his rights to deny the request.

What don’t you get?

Why do you keep thinking the case is being tried in NZ?

No one has claimed that it was.

Almost Anonymous (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Why do you keep thinking the case is being tried in NZ?

Nobody is saying this, except you. What we *are* saying, and you are continually missing, is that the extradition itself looks fishy, and the NZ judge realizes this.

US: Kim Dotcom committed a crime, give him to us!
NZ: We’d like to take a look at the evidence to determine if extradition is really the right thing to do.
US: OMGWTF? We JUST told you he committed a crime! Why do you need to see the evidence? Don’t you understand that we TOLD YOU he committed a crime? Now give him to us!
NZ: …

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“Extradition treaties basically just say “Yes, we have charged him with a crime, and yes, that crime is over the threshold for extradition”.”

Even extradition treaties require that sufficient proof (not ALL of it, just sufficent) be shown to the court to justify the extradition.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

” one that has enough material to justify such a charge”

That is the kicker here, they have to show that they have material to justify the charge and are refusing to do so.

Just calling you pedophile doesn’t mean I have the material to prove my accusation should we let your government extradite you because I have a lot of money and am calling you a criminal without me providing a sliver of evidence?

Ed C. says:

Re: Re:

It’s the extradition itself that’s being tried, not the criminal charges. The accused have the right to contest the charges against them before being extradited to a foreign country. A judge would then have to decide if the request for extradition was in fact lawful. If the accusers cannot make a case for extradition, with evidence to support their claims that the crime had be committed, the judge is well within his rights to deny the request.

But I suppose you think all countries that have extradition treaties with the US simply become kangaroo courts, denouncing all laws and rights of their own citizens?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

In the US there is criminal copyright infringement, although the acts/ommissions these people and the company are charged with are not specified.

This would not allow extradition from New Zealand, but the other charges of money laundering, conspiracy to money launder hinge on the criminal copyright infringment allegations.

So the US are essentially arguing for extradition on the basis of the money laundering charges, and those rely on the criminal copyright charges which are highly dubious.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“In the US there is criminal copyright infringement, although the acts/ommissions these people and the company are charged with are not specified.”

If they’re not specified, they don’t exist.
It’s like saying “AC murdered people. We don’t know whom, but we know he did it!”
Ya gotta have a corpse or corpus delecti.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

They are going to get screwed on the money laundering charges as the entire case they presented was they made money from subscriptions and advertising and then laundered the money by paying for their hosting.
The IRS is a money laundering operation.
Every major corporation is a money laundering operation.

To get extradition they needed charges that met a threshold of jailtime, there are several charges like that in the indictment of dubious quality.

And no one ever wants to comment on the emails from the cartel members claiming losses of kajillions of dollars who at the same time were asking for better access to post their content onto the holdings of Mega. If your neighbor is stealing tools out of your garage, do you go over and ask him to take pictures of your new dog?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

So lets start extraditing all those American soldiers that committed crimes elsewhere, like killing spreas in the middle of the night and see what happens then.

The American bankers that robbed everybody around the world from their saving can be extradited without having to be accused of anything or showing what they are accused of?

Right you are another moron.

A rock under cover says:

Re: Re:

You have to remember most NZer’s give a rats arse about some body trying to tell them to do something, especially if it is an American. More than likely this Judge is doing his/her job and wanting the defence to see evidence so they can defend against the extradition.

Pure reasonable logic and more so Kim Dotcom does excellent coverage of the Rugby and thats more important than a piece of paper/treaty sign with an American.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

You’ve not bothered to read Winkelmann’s ruling. I can tell from your completely ignorant and utterly out of touch comments.
There are laws in New Zealand regarding the due process when an extradition is sought under the treaty the US are seeking these extraditions under.
You know due process, that hallmark of all civilized justice systems?

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Stop trying to place your own unethical laws onto others. When you understand and know about New Zealand laws, then you might be given the opportunity to be heard.

Until then you are just another narcissistic egotist with delusions of grandeur, not unlike the US Govt.

For point of fact for purposes of Extradition the case has to be shown to have merit and all procedural fairness under NZ Laws to have been met.

Don says:

Re: Re:

Or the judge is not playing God and is doing his job to prevent the US from walking all over the sovereignty of NZ. What prevents the US from accusing anyone of being a terrorist and demanding their extradition. Obviously those cases don’t hit the news because the US doesn’t bother with extradition and just resorts to rendition.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re:

> For the purposes of extradition, the case
> doesn’t have to be tried in NZ.

But the US does have to prove there’s a valid case against Dotcom in the US, and in order to do that, it has to show that there’s evidence against them.

The US is basically just saying, “Trust us”, and that’s not something either common sense or the extradition treaty requires.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

In order for what you said to hold any truth, USA would first have to demonstrate they don’t violate treaties themselves. ALENA ? pretty much violated daily by americans… Geneva peace treaty, violated in almost every military use by the americans(you guys still do with Guantanamo)… So please, PLEASE, just shut up and listen, you haven’t done that in a while. USA isn’t the democracy of the world and their oppressive vision of the world trought the capital lens isn’t shared by REAL educated people. The only educated people that agrees with it are the rich ones who use that system to achieve wealth for their family. As if wealth provides ANYTHING. Of coure the USA wants to shut down Dotcom, they also want to shut down the way the internet works because they don’t make as much money as they see “they could make”.

-Have you ever seen a dollar being used by a physician in an operation room ?
-Have you ever seen a dollar driving you somewhere ?
-Have you ever captured or grown food with money ?

Money made sense in a world with large disparities as a mean to ease communication regardless of the differences. In a world where we’ve learned that those were not “real” differences, we no longer need money as a “bridge” between cultures, what we need is a goal so that that goal becomes our “culture”. Sorry but I don’t plan on passing on an ending world to future generations. I’d rather give them a world where it makes sense to live, than ask them to make sense out of living in a meaningless world.

TtfnJohn (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Sigh. Activist judge syndrome again.

Part of the job of an extradition hearing is to determine if there is an actual case for Dotcom to face once he gets to the United States not just the FBI’s word that there something there.

Nor is it really up to the FBI to decide. An extradition case is national government to national government which is where, in the end, should this start to hang on the rocks even at high tide where it will start to move forward again.

The mere fact that the FBI is only wanting to release a cherry picked, summary document to the court isn’t good. That leads extradition courts and judges to think they don’t have an actual case. Not that they’re the only ones thinking that.

In discovery in any court you produce what the judge asks/tells you to produce. The FBI knows that. And New Zealand, like many other countries gets their dander up when an American law enforcement agency, particularly one with a reputation as poor as the FBI’s refuses to do it.

If the hearing was being held in Canada there’s something like a 100% chance that the extradition would have been denied almost the moment that came in. It’s called go pull someone else’s chain and, by the way, we’re independent not your damned colony. Dotcom walks. You ain’t got to case.

TtfnJohn (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I wouldn’t be. Your court and judge at the extradition hearing are doing exactly what they ought to be doing. As for the contempt of the FBI, that outfit is as corrupt as all get out and more. It’s a game they play or try to. They’re rotten to the core as an organization which is not saying their agents are all like that but the organization has always thought it was above the law, all the way back to J Edgar Hoover.

Anonymous Coward says:

Oh come on! For fucks sake… They would have been better off to make up some shit then call him a terrorist and send him to Gitmo..

I mean that’s already how they’re trying to treat him.. My government really needs to stand up and apologize and give him his money back and crush this absurd circus of a case.

This is almost as bad as cops charging people with a felony for farting at them.

SHIT QUICK QUICK TASE HIM HE HAS A STINK CANNON!

abc gum says:

What – They’re not doing what they’re told?
Guess it’s time to invade.

IIRC, extradition treaties are based upon a principle of reciprocity. This concerns me because it implies that the good old us of a would hand me over in a heart beat based upon unsubstantiated charges.

High court, low court and no court … this will not end well.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

They’re not “unsubstantiated charges.” In order for charges to be made, the prosecutor must obtain a warrant which must present probable cause that the person accused committed the crime he’s accused of. The warrant must be signed by a judge, after he/she is convinced that probable cause exists.

Probable cause consists of two parts, one that there was probably a crime and two, the accused person probably committed it.

Granted, probable cause isn’t proof almighty that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt – that’s why you have a trial. It’s simply says that there’s enough evidence to HAVE a trial.

Y’all people make it sound like the feds, cops or anyone else can just declare “He did something!” and it’s a valid charge. That’s not how it works.

I’ll be the first to admit that a charge against someone doesn’t mean they are guilty. People are found not guilty every day.

As far as the Kim Dotcom case goes, the feds should just punt, since their warrants were found invalid(I haven’t really been following the case so I’m not sure ‘why’ they are invalid, sometimes warrants can be invalid for reasons that have nothing to do with the charges) and what little I have read about this case seems to point to the fact the the feds seem to have royally screwed the pooch and should just drop it, go home and chalk it up as a learning experience.

I don’t know or care if he did what he’s accused of, but people that have no freaking clue about the court system in the US really should stop spouting off the nonsense. It would be as embarrassing as me talking about NZ law. I don’t know a damn thing about it, so I can’t comment on what they should or shouldn’t do or what due process should be followed there.

Anonymous Coward says:

What’s most troubling here is if the US government doesn’t think DotCom should be able to see the evidence against him NOW, then when will they change their mind and want to show him the evidence?

Are the idiots prosecutors not aware of the long history of that kind of an attitude costing them easy wins and letting the defendant go free? Such as how Nixon botched the case against Daniel Ellsberg so badly that the whole thing got thrown out, and Ellsberg is now free man.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

He will see the evidence as soon as he’s entered the court system (which requires him to have his charges read to him, booked and all that). He doesn’t get to look at everything and then decide whether he wants to come face his charges. You really should read up on how the court system works.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Oh naivete… The USG is telling a NZ judge that ‘no, no one but us gets to see the evidence, but trust us, it’s more than enough to convict’.

Given that they’re willing to treat a foreign justice system like that, do you honestly think they would have any problem pulling the exact same thing and worse in an american court case?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

And actually, what’s most troubling is people talking out of their ass about something they don’t understand. Do you seriously think the police have to show a bank robber who’s holding up a bank all the videos of him robbing the bank, all the witness statement from customers and bank employees, the receipts from where he got the gun and all the other evidence before taking him into custody? Seriously?

Please think about what you’re saying.

aedan (profile) says:

Lets examine some of the extradition treaty, shall we?

ARTICLE IV
Extradition shall be granted only if the evidence be found sufficient, according to the laws of the place where the
person sought shall be found, either to justify his committal for trial if the offense of which he is accused had been committed in that place or to prove that he is the person convicted by the courts of the requesting Party.

Article iv tells us that the evidence to charge and/or convict must be sufficient. So DotCom is entitled to see the evidence the U.S. has against him, article iv is pretty clear on that.

ARTICLE V
Neither of the Contracting Parties shall be bound to deliver up its own citizens under this Treaty, but the executive
authority of each shall have the power to deliver them up, if, in its discretion, it be deemed proper to do so

Article v is pretty clear in stating that New Zealand is not bound to extradite, unless they desire.

ARTICLE X When the request relates to a person who has not yet been convicted, it must also be accompanied by a warrant of arrest issued by a judge or other judicial officer of the requesting Party and by such evidence as, according to the laws of the requested Party, would justify his arrest and committal for trial if the offense had been committed there, including evidence proving the person requested is the person to whom the warrant of arrest refers

Article x specifically addresses people not yet convicted and that the evidence needs to justify the arrest. U.S. needs to provide the evidence.

ARTICLE XII
If the requested Party requires additional evidence or information to enable it to decide on the request for extradition, such evidence or information shall be submitted to it within such time as that Party shall require.
If the person sought is under arrest and the additional evidence or information submitted as aforesaid is not sufficient or if such evidence or information is not received within the period specified by the requested Party, he shall be discharged from custody. However, such discharge shall not bar the requesting Party from submitting another request
[*12] in respect of the same offense.

Article xii clearly states that New Zealand has the right to request the evidence and to set a deadline for the evidence. If the evidence is not provided within that time, DotCom should be released.

I also looked through Article ii which details the list of offenses for which extradition can be sought. I did not see an offense that makes any sense, using a common sense interpretation. That leads me to believe that this extradition is more of a political attack. Face it, recently we have dealt with MPAA, RIAA, SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA. All of these are political and this appears to be a political character assassination. So lets examine that part.

ARTICLE VI Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances:

4. If the offense for which his extradition is requested is of a political character, or if he proves that the requisition for his surrender has in fact been made with a view to try or punish him for an offense of a political character. If any question arises as to whether a case comes within the provisions of this paragraph, it shall be determined according to the laws of the requested Party.

Article vi clearly states that if it is political in nature then New Zealand has a right to deny extradition as well.

The articles that I presented here make a decidedly strong statement that DotCom should just be released and have his properties returned. Argue that if you wish, but at the very least he is entitled to see the evidence being used against him for both extradition and evidence for the charges he will face in the U.S.

I highly encourage every single one of you to look up the treaty, familiarize yourself with it and your rights!!!!

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Article VI is NOT about anyone running for office, it is about a political crime/offence.

For example if someone is the head of an organisation that causes another country and/or govt to be shamed or lose political sway with their citizens and that organisation is legal in the country where the extradition is requested from. Then this would be classified as a political crime and would fall under Article VI. Otherwise anyone who helps Cuba for example could be extradited to the USA, whereas the rest of the civilised planet actually trades and communicates with Cuba, unlike the USA.

Whether someone is running for office or already has been elected is irrelevant under that Article.

HumbleForeigner (profile) says:

Re: Re:

The other take-away point from Article IV is:
…if the evidence be found sufficient, according to the laws of the place where the person sought shall be found, either to justify his committal for trial if the offense of which he is accused had been committed in that place…

Which as I read it means that the charge that extradition is being sought after also must be a crime in the country where they are. If that is the case, then the evidence must be seen as it will needed to prove if Kim Dotcom has committed a criminal offense under New Zealand law, and not just a crime under US law.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The USG won’t cough up the evidence.All they have they took without consent.So it is inadmissible.Not to mention Kim Dotcom did not do business in USA.So nothing is what they have other than being of a thug mentality and just demanding what they want!This whole thing makes me sick as an American.Our government is so frigging corrupt they will stage a stupid and useless stunt like this.All to appease the campaign contributors from the entertainment industry.Absolutely inexcusable!I apologize for my country and hope you all get the shits of our government and declare war on us as a world thing!Sanction us!Embargo US!It will take the world giving back to USA the same muscle flexing it does.And you NZ folks need to investigate all involved with the seizure and arrest there.Someone had to take some cash somewhere or they would have laughed at the thought!gotta go puke.

Harry Black says:

It's a shame

I hate to see the judicial authority of my country ridiculed because of their commitment to RIAA, MPAA and their ilk. There isn’t even the apparency of integrity any more, time coincident with the Patriot Act.I wish President Obama weighed in on this issue. Hopefully during his second term.

Violated (profile) says:

Idiots

The FBI is being really really stupid. Unless they hand over proof soon this case will end really bad for them. I can’t believe they could ever say “Mega cannot see the evidence against them”

Welcome to true US Justice. What with the entire world watching them they should be on their best behaviour with “Yes Judge, No Judge, whatever you want Judge”. Not though what we see here when the FBI just keeps messing it up.

Then we can see that it is Kim Dotcom who has been doing everything right including following court rulings. As a result the court has relaxed their control and showing that Kim Dotcom can be trusted to fight the charges against him.

Well had I been in change of the FBI I would be totally peed off now and I would demand they get their act together. Not that I want the FBI to win but Kim Dotcom should have the chance to prove his innocence and not just get off the hook because US Justice is a bunch of morons who cant get their game together.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Idiots

Lol you calling someone a moron? He doesnt have to prove his innocence “IN FRIGGING COURT”. The burden of proof is on the U.S. Government, you FRIGGING MORON. YOU obviously have no FRIGGING idea how the legal system works!

First off, he doesnt live in the U.S. so the U.S. Government has NO right at all to just take him into custody. U.S. Government does not translate to World Police.

Second off, Articles iv, v, and vii of the extradition treaty clearly address the need for substantial evidence to be presented to extradite. The U.S. Government has been refusing to provide requested evidence.

Third off, the U.S. Government is refusing to return data to the legitimate owners. Poor form U.S. Government, just poor form.

Fourth off, the U.S. Government can kindly fuck off. You are not the World Police and you need to reread the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights that you so frequently shit on and wipe your ass with.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Idiots

Lol you calling someone a moron? He doesnt have to prove his innocence “IN FRIGGING COURT”. The burden of proof is on the U.S. Government, you FRIGGING MORON. YOU obviously have no FRIGGING idea how the legal system works!

First off, he doesnt live in the U.S. so the U.S. Government has NO right at all to just take him into custody. U.S. Government does not translate to World Police.

Second off, Articles iv, v, and vii of the extradition treaty clearly address the need for substantial evidence to be presented to extradite. The U.S. Government has been refusing to provide requested evidence.

Third off, the U.S. Government is refusing to return data to the legitimate owners. Poor form U.S. Government, just poor form.

Fourth off, the U.S. Government can kindly fuck off. You are not the World Police and you need to reread the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights that you so frequently shit on and wipe your ass with.

Get off my cyber-lawn! (profile) says:

Please correct me if I'm wrong here....

1. Defendent resides in and is citizen of NZ

2. Defendent at no time operated business in US

3. Defendent business at no time was based in US

4. Servers were at no time based in US

5. Defendent not accused of actually stealing IP

6. Defendent accused of hosting a service which MIGHT have had stolen IP on it

7. ALL evidence taken by US and not begin provided to NZ or defense

8. Given the above, how does NZ determine defendent broke a law in a country he wasn’t in using a service not based there and under laws where the actions defendent being accused of aren’t illegal in the US?

Is Carreon involved in this somehow?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Please correct me if I'm wrong here....

1.Mr Dotcom is a New Zealand resident (not citizen).

4.The servers were based in the US.

5.It’s difficult to be certain what they are alleging as they seem more interested in using colourful language like “Mega Conspiracy” breathlessly with much clutching of pearls than they are in actually explaining what they hell they are about.

6.The Crown (New Zealand) will still have their own copy of the data I expect, unlike Mr Dotcom and his co-defendents.

8.New Zealand has no place to determine that, but rather is concerned with whether or not extradition is merited.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Please correct me if I'm wrong here....

“And extradition can only be merited if the charges being pressed would be a criminal offense if they had occurred in New Zealand.”
Which is why it’s crucial to the US case to show that the laundering and conspiracy charges have merit. Of course those charges rely on the legitimacy of the copyright charges, which in turn are highly dubious.

Angry Voter says:

Heil Plutocracy!

I fear the government the same way I fear Mexican and African gangs but I can’t respect them because they are just the brown shirts of the plutocracy. They need to wake up and realize that the plutocracy they are working for will sacrifice them the instant they can be replaced with something cheaper. 40 years in the FBI? SO what! The Plutocrats will steal your pension and your grandchildren will be debt serfs their entire lives.

Does the government do good works? Al Capone operated soup kitchens for good PR. What people don’t realize is that he operated them by restaurants that didn’t pay him protection money thereby bankrupting them.

USA = Terrorist says:

The truth hurts

From most accounts, the USA caused over 110,000 deaths in Iraq by an invasion based on lies. The senior levels of the government should be held accountable, similar to what they want wit Assad. The USA government is, and always will be, the largest terror organization in the world. They just wear nicer suits that Al Queda.

Anonymous Coward says:

What is most surprising is not the government doing its thing, one thing I notice and others did it too, was that apparently the US government it is not speaking with one voice, it is not being consistent in their affairs which signals something worse than corruption and that is disarray on the leadership.

The leadership in America don’t know where to go, it doesn’t have a clear vision, it is lost, they can’t see the right from the wrong and that is a problem, a really fraking problem.

Stoatwblr (profile) says:

Activist Judge

Winkelmann is _not_ an activist judge.

What she is, is one of the few judges in the country who are more than willing to make sure that the law applies equally in her courtroom.

Unlike the overly credulous judge who issued the original search warrants(*) based on allegations without adequate evidence. Does anyone else find it interesting that judge’s name is not in the public arena?

(*) Warrants which were over-broad, and yet the police and FBI went so far beyond them that even the NZ judiciary blinked.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

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 ยป

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

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