How The US Government Legally Stole Millions From Kim Dotcom

from the the-fun-of-asset-forfeiture dept

About a month ago we covered the basics of the lawsuit by which the US government was seeking to keep pretty much all of Kim Dotcom’s assets, despite the fact that Dotcom himself hasn’t been tried — and, in fact, it hasn’t even been determined if he can be extradited to the United States (a country he’s never visited). This week, that case took another step, with the judge, Liam O’Grady, who had already ruled that Kim Dotcom could be considered a “fugitive,” more or less finalizing the theft of Dotcom’s assets by declaring a default judgment in favor of the US. This isn’t the end of the process (not by a longshot), but it highlights just how the US government can use some ridiculous procedures to steal millions in assets from someone who hasn’t been shown to be guilty of anything.

As we discussed last time, the story of the raid on Kim Dotcom’s rented home in New Zealand, the seizure of all of his cars, money, bank accounts, computers, servers, etc. is well known. That was part of a case for which Kim Dotcom was indicted (under what appears to be questionable legal reasoning — but that’s a separate issue). As has been widely reported, that case is still on hold while Dotcom fights extradition from New Zealand. The extradition fight will finally go to a New Zealand court later this summer. Once that’s done, if Dotcom loses, he’ll be sent to the US, where he’ll face a criminal trial based on the indictment.

But this is actually separate from all of that. You see, when the US government grabbed or froze all of Dotcom’s assets, they did so using an asset seizure procedure. Asset seizure is allowed in such cases, but the government then has to give that property back. What the government really wanted to do is keep all of Dotcom’s tens of millions of dollars worth of assets — and in order to do that it has to go through a separate process, known as civil asset forfeiture. It’s technically a civil (not criminal) case, but (and here’s the part that people find most confusing), it’s not actually filed against Kim Dotcom at all, but rather against his stuff that the government already seized. Yes, it’s technically an entirely separate lawsuit, that was only filed last summer (two and a half years after the government seized all of his stuff and shut down his company), entitled United States Of America v. All Assets Listed In Attachment A, And All Interest, Benefits, And Assets Traceable Thereto. And, as we noted last time, Attachment A is basically all of Kim Dotcom’s stuff.

This whole process is known as an “in rem” proceeding — meaning a lawsuit “against a thing” rather than against a person. And the “case” basically says all this stuff should be “forfeited” to the US government because it’s the proceeds of some criminal activity. You would think that in order for such civil asset forfeiture to go forward, you’d then have to show something like a criminal conviction proving that the assets in question were, in fact, tied to criminal activity. You’d be wrong — as is clear from what happened in this very case. Once the Justice Department effectively filed a lawsuit against “all of Kim Dotcom’s money and stuff,” Dotcom did what you’re supposed to do in that situation and filed a challenge to such a ridiculous situation. And here the DOJ used the fact that Dotcom was fighting extradition to argue that he was a “fugitive.” Judge O’Grady agreed with that last month, and that resulted in the decision earlier this week to then declare a “default judgment” in favor of the DOJ, and giving the US government all of Kim Dotcom’s stuff.

A “default judgment?” As you know if you regularly read Techdirt, that’s usually what happens when a defendant simply ignores a court case filed against him. As the court notes in this ruling, for that to happen in a civil asset forfeiture case, it means no one tried to block the claim:

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 permits the court to grant a motion for default judgment when the well-pled allegations of the complaint establish plaintiff’s entitlement to relief, and where a defendant has failed to plead or defend as provided by the rules…. In the civil forfeiture context, default judgment is permitted where no potential claimant has filed a response to the complaint

A defendant in default, and a claimant who fails to assert a claim in rem, is deemed to have admitted all of the plaintiff’s well-pled allegations of fact, which then form the basis for the judgment in the plaintiff’s favor.

But, wait, you say: Kim Dotcom did file a complaint about the asset forfeiture, so how could a default judgment happen here? That’s where the whole “fugitive” bit comes in. Because Dotcom won’t come to the US, he’s been deemed a fugitive, and thus the Judge simply hands over all of his stuff to the US government. And thus, without any sort of criminal conviction at all, the US gets to steal millions of dollars from Dotcom.

If that sounds insane, you’re absolutely right. And, again, it is entirely possible that when all of this is over, Kim Dotcom will be found guilty of “criminal conspiracy.” If that’s the case, then at that point it’s reasonable to discuss whether the government should get to keep all of his stuff. But it seems an absolute travesty of concepts like due process for the government to be able to take all of his money and stuff based on purely procedural reasons having to do with a separate criminal case that hasn’t even been tried yet.

The process isn’t over yet. Dotcom can still appeal this ruling, though the real problem is with the civil asset forfeiture process, rather than how it was applied in this particular case. Dotcom also has other options for the assets that are in New Zealand and Hong Kong, in using the local courts in those places to try to block the transfer of those assets to the US government. Not knowing enough about the law in either place, it’s difficult to say what the chances of success of such a strategy would be. Either way, this seems like a classic case demonstrating how the civil asset forfeiture process appears to be little more than legalized theft by the US government.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,
Companies: megaupload

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 “How The US Government Legally Stole Millions From Kim Dotcom”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
292 Comments
That One Guy (profile) says:

Theft vs 'Theft'

So Dotcom is accused of running a site that ‘facilitated infringement’, and according to the *AA’s and their employees in the DOJ, costed honest filmmakers and popcorn farmers and stage hands millions of dollars, and this is supposed to be a horrible crime.

Dotcom has the fact that he has a working brain, and knows the kind of treatment he’d get if he stepped foot in the US used against him, and the USG steals tens of millions of dollars from him as a result, along with a whole slew of other pieces of property. And this is not supposed to be a horrible crime?

As if it wasn’t obvious enough how big of a mess this whole case has been, and the kind of treatment he’d receive if extradited…

Brian Richard Allen (profile) says:

Re: Theft vs 'Theft'

…. As if it wasn’t obvious enough how big of a mess this whole case has been, and the kind of treatment he’d receive in America’s federal system ….

Whose 95+% conviction /”win” rate tells of the Degree of corruption in a fiat system engineered, owned, operated and run by the several generations of fascissocialist “Democrats.” Fundamental to whose essentially totalitarian ideology is the their own collectivists’ conviction that the amoral (Theft, EG – as in this instance) may be made moral by “legislating” it so.

Super Skepti (profile) says:

Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'

Brian…I mostly agree with you, except… This is not a liberal vs. conservative or Democrat vs. Republican problem, and I think that pulling that card cheapens and distracts from what is happening with cases like with Kim Dotcom. Both Democratic and Republican parties endorse civil asset forfeiture at various levels, even though there has been a lot of doublespeak after Jeff Sessions recently tried to seriously bolster/revive it and there was that whole mostly bipartisan effort of pushback. The parties are not much different when you look at the elites at the top– after all, they all sleep and play golf together. That may sound crass, but it is, generally speaking, true. There are neocons and neolibs in high places of both sides of the parties who contribute to candidates of BOTH parties, and whose goal is, ultimately, continued financial domination. It doesn’t matter whether you’re looking at Soros or the Koch brothers, for example. They’re all the same, same basic goals, simply different strategies to an extent and different ways of going about achieving their goals… i.e, the entire point is to get us all bickering and fighting each other, so that they can basically scam their constituents right in front of our faces, knowing that each side has brainwashed enough of their followers that they ignore the obvious problems even if they otherwise mostly agree with their party’s political leanings. We are much easier to control this way. I grew up in a conservative family, swing pretty liberal for a while, and after a lot of critical examination have landed just about in the Middle with the realization that both parties are full of crap and place bad judges, and make bad policies that have the end result, however well hidden sometimes, fattening up their own pockets while pretending that they care about their constituents. Both parties do it. And I think that until we all come to that realization, and kick the actual fascists out of both parties, we’re not going to get anywhere. My 2 cents.

Brian Richard Allen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'

Hi there and thanks for commenting. I’d say we’re pretty much twins, historically and ideologically and am mostly in agreement with you, too. Uniparty? Yep – Absolutely. Be loathe, tho’, to accept any comparison of the un-and-anti-American/former Nazi, Soros and the essentially decent Kochs. And would suggest that those “conservatives” who’re indistinguishable from “democrats” are, in fact, “democrats.” Democrats in Republican costumes: – AKA RINOs.

Foxx Drake says:

Re: Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'

I’m a citizen of the USA. Super Skepti speaks the truth. We’re F’d and we all know it. We woke up one day and found ourselves ruled by a corrupt elite. Republican, Democrat, Left, Right, North, South, … points on a compass, meaningless. It’s all part of the same machine, a corporate one. It’s a machine meant to keep the billionaire class protected and firmly in control. It’s is designed to enslave, subjugate and control the so called “average american.” There’s no hope. People are so scared they just try not to stick out and float by quietly, but they know. That’s why they voted for Trump. They’re desperate for something OTHER than the establishment and the ruling class. They see the country falling apart around them, they know these people (the top 10% that supports the top 1%) have run the greatest power in the history of humanity into the dirt and that they’ve stolen our birth-right and given it to China and their own pockets. They are corrupt beyond measure and have robbed the American people blind. The difference here? What Kim Dot Com is finding out is what American citizens have known for some time.

Vincent Ardolino says:

Re: Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'

In general I agree with this uniparty theory. They are all part of the swamp that Trump is attempting to drain. That is why he is hated on both sides because he is a true outsider not beholden to any group or party. He risks destroying the entire rigged system of Government. Just like any wild animal if you corner them, they become very dangerous.

Brian Richard Allen says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Theft vs 'Theft'

President Trump is not destroying our beloved fraternal republic’s government but is, by ridding it of the "democrats’" Deep State’s (bureaucratic) fiat courts and 4th branch’s corrupt rigging, is restoring it. And are the dhimis, their RINOs and Fascist Media, pissed — or are they all pissed?

Not since President Reagan, by ending their cold war. broke the fascist Left "democrats’" military-industrial-complex’s rice bowl have they all been as Psychotically Enraged!

Jen online says:

Re: Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'

Agree. It’s a corrupt system, engineered to distract a very easily distracted public that enjoys bickering over actually making real changes to the system. America needs a viable, electable third-party option as almost 90% are centrists, not being served by either of the two dominant parties.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 "90% are centrists"

Firstly, [citation needed]

Secondly, the studies that exist don’t suggest people want moderate action and compromise down the middle, but agree with differing party positions depending on the subject. But centrists vehemently disagree with each other And they often have extremist positions on one topic or another.

So even if we had 90% centrists, they would never be a unified front, and would not necessarily approve of a given third party.

I might argue for a system that offers a dozen or so parties and a non-FPTP electoral system that allows them to play on an even field. But that hasn’t helped the chaos in the UK all that much.

Maybe we should try a sortition by social security lottery?

JelloBeyonce (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'

The rise of global banana republics.

Consider that organizations like the Atlantic Council, the WEF/Davos, the CFR, and numerous others exist as non-partisan/bipartisan membership entities.
Even often spanning beyond "nationalistic" tendencies.

The "Father of Spin", Edward Bernays, in his 1928 book "Propaganda" wrote:
"If you can influence the leaders, either with or without their conscious cooperation, you automatically influence the group which they sway"

and:
"The best defense against propaganda: more propaganda."
-Quoted in L. Tye The Father of Spin (1998) p. 102-
As in calling out an imaginary "deep state" whilst continuing to work for & support the true deep state.

The vast majority of humans are highly insecure and need group identity.
The vast majority of humans resort to the seeming instinct of "Dichotomous thinking" (i.e. groupthink {incl. ‘in-group" & out-group], this or that, one or the other) and therefore tend to lump things into mere polar opposites.
They largely struggle with complicated concepts, organizational structures and/or operations.

As such, much human thinking and behavior is easily manipulated via groupthink propaganda.

As the mindless masses are continually herded into "polar/dichotomously opposing" groups, and kept busily distracted blaming & fighting each other over which sides "leaders" are more corrupt, those elite at the top are able to avoid detection/accountability.

It’s interesting to read many of these old comments from say 2016, blaming the "Dems", yet now in 2019 with a "GOP" prez and senate, nothing has changed.
Where o’ where are your "Great White Knights" in the "GOP" saving us from the ongoing Constitutional crises that continue?

Assange, Snowden, Dotcom…..shall I continue?
Each was persecuted by the "Dem" leadership, each continue to be persecuted by the "GOP" leadership.

And yet the richest of the rich keep gaining unprecedented wealth.
The most powerful elite gain ever-more power.

Since the 1980’s, more & more of the largest "competing" corporations, in most every single industry, have become increasingly consolidated under the same largest ownership schema.
The same largest money-management & investment firms exist as the largest concentrated shareholders of most everything.
Plus, they exist as the largest shareholders/investors of each other.

Like one huge cartel.

They control the U.S., and thus global economy (take a look at how much U.S. money is invested in the largest Chinese firms).
As such, they control politics.
And as such, they control governments.

Even a "billionaire" prez is no match for the tens of trillions held & controlled by the elite.
Money IS power.
Those elite maintain the wealth to maintain power & control over anyone, especially those "in power".

Only those that pledge & demonstrate unwavering allegiance to those elite are allowed to advance up the hierarchy.

"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. One man thinks himself the master of others, but remains more of a slave than they are."
-Jean Jacques Rousseau, "The Social Contract"-

The former Age of Enlightenment has been dying a slow death.

Rights, freedoms, liberties and justice are increasingly assigned based on wealth.

People are increasingly being judged not just solely on the amount of capital they move in their lifetimes, but further on the amount of capital they direct to the .0002% (the billionaire class).

As Kim Dotcom (and his followers) gripes about the "liberals" and "Dems" stealing his money, both the "GOP" and "Dems", the neoconservatives and neoliberals, are continuing to steal tens of trillions from the commoners of the world, and hand those tens of trillions to the largest banks & trading houses, creating one of the largest stock bubbles (and numerous other asset bubbles) in known history (read about the South Sea and other corporate scandals in 18th century England, which largely led to the American, French & English revolutions).

As Kim Dotcom (and his followers) continue to complain of the "liberal" U.S. attempts to enslave him (likely via incarceration), the commoners of the world are forced deeper into their own enslavement, but cheering that enslavement as it comes from the "right" as opposed to that coming from the "left".

Enslavement is enslavement, regardless the partisan identity of the Masters.

Kudos to Super Skepti for cutting thru the "partisan" b.s. & being one of the very few to recognize & identify this growing problem.

Pauli says:

Re: Theft vs 'Theft'

If you are innocent Kim why not willingly go to the US to claim your innocent instead of bragging and make all sort of noises. Innocent people are not afraid to face the court to clear their names….. common sense prevail …. honesty is best policy???

Lies will never owe up to face justice??????

Brian Richard Allen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'

America’s federal government its bureaucracy and rule-by-fiat “courts” firmly in the hands of fascist “Democrats,” has a 95+% conviction rate in its courts. Achieved by the absolute corruption of all legal processes by any-means-to-an-end closely-allied-to-the-Hollyweired, “Democrats.” Virginia’s courts, their juries usually comprising “Democrat” federal government employees has, if its possible, an even higher conviction rate. Mr Dotcom’s chance of getting a fair trial there? Less than Zero!

Best he stay the Heck away!

Uknow says:

Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'

You speak of higher morals like honesty, and general decency. If you believe that these institutions as a whole or the individuals that comprise them are at all decent or honest in their practices, then I’m afraid you are mistaken. He was messing with their money, and therefore messing with their power and they had to deal witht the situation. Through a bunch of documents and proceedings created by judges and lawyers It seems like a legitimate and proper thing to do, but truly Its the most powerful force in the world eliminating a threat to the way that they create and maintain their power. Through the system of currency. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm Just Me says:

Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'

Theft vs’Theft’ are you crazy? Are you from the USA if you are not then you don’t understand but if you are why would you ask such a crazy question? If he were to step foot in America especially under the Obama administration he would have gone straight to prison.

Brian Richard Allen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'

…. If he were to step foot in America especially under the Obama administration he would have gone straight to prison ….

In fairness it won’t matter who is occupying the White House if Mr Dotcom is ever press-ganged to America, as the criminal "justice" system and the, thus, made-fiat courts are comprehensively effectively owned operated and controlled by activists of the same totalitarian ideological bent as Obama. Who will spend as much as it takes to force Mr Dotcom or whomever is their victim of the minute to "plea bargain" into some form of conviction and/or loss. Its "conviction rate" of close to 96% is achieved by the criminal "justice" system standing over and threatening those it has predetermined are "guilty" … until they agree.

catherine OSullivan (user link) says:

Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'

THat is quite breathtaking for you to think Dotcom would get a fair trial in the US> Im from New Zealand and the whole sorry tale of his rights invaded and assets stolen from our soil is remarkable. This was allowed under our Prime Minister at the time who used to work for the New York branch of the Federal Reserve. Its no mistake he was leaned on and our sovereign police was temporarily working for a foreign country on that day.

Brian Richard Allen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'

I, also, am from New Zealand. Born there, that is but escaped long ago and became American, when the writing – since carved into stone – of New Zealand’s demise as an independent nation of Free Men – was first writ upon the wall.

I have just spent two years back in New Zealand, which, in the years I have been away, has degenerated from a tough and hardy and monoculturally-unique and fabulously-well-assimilated land of which to be proud and into being a cheap Xerox copy of any one of the Europeons’ neo-Soviet’s on-and-offshore satellite states. As-if-cloned from any other soul-less governed by an increasingly-authoritarian, elitist, globalist, fascistic, (“private ownership” but intrusively-government-regulated) – “permanent public service.”

The nation whose warriors once left their mark on battlefields all over the world and whose son effectively-single-handedly won the Battle of Britain, now rendered incapable of defending itself.

But has no difficulty terrorizing Mr Dotcom and his family nor of stripping him of his every last Brass Razu without his having ever had a minute – let alone his day – in court. Nor his having been charged with nor convicted of any offense in New Zealand law. (Nor in America – where the allegations against him are Civil in nature – not Criminal) — B A.: L A CA — and The Very Far Away

bobby says:

Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'

Pauli- how old are you?? or have you just led a sheltered life. When politicians want to ruin you they use dirty prosecutors, hide evidence from your lawyers that show you to be innocent and plant evidence. In many Govt. prosecutors offices the truth doesn’t matter- the won vs. lost cases record matters.

KTA (user link) says:

Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'

Kim don’t buy into Pauli’s lies faggots like him are most likely government shills , once you are in America DOJ will lie about anything for the money . Also they will limit your access to assets giving then a win win. US does not have a right to seize foreign assets of a foreign citizen without a criminal case . Innocent people go to jail all the time in America and should not trust our DOJ they have shown high levels of corruption since democrats ran it for 8 years under the communist piece of shit OBAMA . Remember never meet the enemy on their terms “DOJ” hold your ground in NZ or go to a country which does not honor any USA laws !! God speed anonS

deepatriot says:

Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'

He has offered to come to the US on many occasions, problem is, they will not guarantee him any security, protection, and he knows he will not be alive very long with all that he knows and has proofs of. He also offered to come to tel the truths in the Russia probe/Seth Rich saga, but Mueller ignores him, Comey and others were to meet with him,long time ago, Comey, went off on his own to NZ, whereas Kim knew he was up to something, they were possibly going to take him out of picture, thus, his demand for security in and back out of US.

coolbeans2022 (profile) says:

Re: Theft vs 'Theft'

90% of United States Federal prosecution is possession of you….
As long as you are not incarcerated (in their possession) you still retain all of your rights.
Jeff Sessions, previous AG that recused himself from the "Fake Russian Collusion" started up this unconstitutional theft of property after it had died down…
How can they even force this BS on someone that has no ties, associations, nadda with this once great country that is now a sinking ship……???!!!!!!

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Greater of two evils.

On the other hand, assuming the NZ judges are even remotely interested in seeing justice done(though given they are still bothering with the extradition and haven’t given a solid answer either way yet this is up for debate), the USG’s actions are providing an excellent reason to deny extradition.

If this is how they’re acting when he’s not even in the country, you could be sure once they got their hands on him the treatment would be much, much worse.

Brian Richard Allen (profile) says:

Re: Greater of two evils.

…. Whatever Kim Dot com may have allegedly done, what the US federal government has done to him is far, exponentially and infinitely worse.

…. If the US federal government is trying to be the shining light and bastion of justice, it is being exactly the opposite of what it should ….

True.

And soon – with this year’s choice for “president” likely to be between a mentally-ill, misogynistic, deranged, delusional, malignantly narcissistic, career-cronyist con-man and a mentally-ill, misandristic, deranged, delusional,l malignantly narcissistic, co-serially-treasonous, career-cronyist recidivist – to be unimaginably worse.

God save us all!

Brian Richard Allen

Brian Richard Allen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Greater of two evils.

…. choice for “president” likely to be between a mentally-ill, misogynistic, deranged, delusional, malignantly narcissistic, career-cronyist con-man and a mentally-ill, misandristic, deranged, delusional,l malignantly narcissistic, co-serially-treasonous, career-cronyist recidivist ….

Thank God I got that half wrong!

President Trump? DRAIN THE SWAMP!

Mr Dotcom – Chase down Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and expose the Deep State’s assassination of Seth Rich! (And others)

Anonymous Coward says:

“Stolen”? While civil forfeiture appears to be a process that has been subject to abuse, there is nothing in this case that appears to be abusive conduct by the USG. KDC has had numerous opportunities to appear before the federal court in Alexandria, VA and present a defense. That he has elected not to do so, thus waiving substantive rights and setting the stage for a default, is quite telling.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

As opposed to … what, you? The mainstream media that either won’t cover the issue or won’t let certain people, like Mike Masnick and others, comment on the issues because the MSM is too biased on the issue and know they can’t defend their agenda in the face of scrutiny. Pro-IP sites that either disable comments or just delete unwanted opposing comments because they can’t defend their position. I certainly don’t see you doing much to defend your position, if anything, you seem to be hurting it much more by showing what kinda dishonest person you are. At the very least you can hold a pro-IP view while admitting that what the government did here is wrong and admitting that our current laws are undemocratically bought and paid for but still arguing that we do need some sort of IP laws and grounds to enforce them. but, no, you go all out dishonest on us and defend the indefensible.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Yes, it’s telling that he has a functional brain, and would rather not walk into the kangaroo court that the DOJ’s actions have all but guaranteed he’d receive.

The DOJ has destroyed evidence/ensured that it would be destroyed(and in the process destroyed his business, all without a finding of ‘guilty’ or even a trial), illegally taken evidence out of the country, knowingly lied to a court about the legality of serving him, and then tried to get the laws changed later to retroactively make their previous claims true, called for extension after extension for the extradition case in order to drain as much money as they can from him, conned the NZ police into performing a SWAT-style raid on his house by lying and claiming he could do something they knew he couldn’t(remotely wipe the servers they had already seized)… do I really need to go on?

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The seized the MU servers, and refused to let Dotcom or his legal team have access to them, or even pay for their upkeep, ensuring that they would be wiped unless the company who owned them wanted to pay the costs of maintaining them indefinitely. This despite the fact that as supposed evidence in a case, the DOJ should have been the ones paying the maintenance costs.

They may not have directly destroyed evidence and MU property, but through their actions they knowingly ensured that it would happen.

As for ‘gushing’, I couldn’t care less about Dotcom personally, what I care about is seeing justice carried out, and having your property stolen and/or destroyed, all without stepping foot in a courtroom or being found guilty, is not justice.

Chronno S. Trigger (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

AC sees justice as punishing the guilty. We see justice as protecting the innocent. Doesn’t sound like much of a distinction, does it, but it makes all the difference in the world.

If someone thinks that justice is punishing the guilty, then due process goes out the window. Who cares how many rights are stepped on, what evidence is destroyed, what lies are told? We got the bad guy.

However, if someone thinks justice is protecting the innocent, then due process becomes the primary goal of the investigation. Have to make damn sure they’re looking to punish the right person because you cannot punish the innocent.

Thanks to a few common quotes we hear all the time we know that justice in the United States is suppose to be about protecting the innocent. “Innocent until proven guilty” “it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer” -Benjamin Franklin

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Wow. Disinformation much?

Let me guess: you figure that since Leaseweb deleted the servers since the DoJ wouldn’t cover the cost nor would they release Dotcom’s assets so that he could out-of-pocket, that the DoJ wasn’t culpable?

Or were you just trying to deny the events as they happened?

Relying on such semantics is sleazy. Don’t do that.

RD says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“The DOJ has not destroyed evidence, “

Absolute, fucking god-damn LIE. You are LYING, period. It has been PROVEN that the USG has destroyed evidence in this case, and directly ordered evidence to be destroyed.

You deserve all the auto-reports you get for your blatant attempt at misrepresenting the facts.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Are you really trying to say that the USG didn’t prevent Dotcom’s team from inspecting the servers for exculpatory evidence before releasing them to be destroyed? Because that is exactly what happened. It’s a fact.

Are you really trying to re-write history here? One has to wonder why you would do such a thing.

RD says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

“Where did you get the notion that the USG refused access to the servers in VA to KDC’s legal counsel?”

Uh…from the USG themselves? You really need to figure out how to use Google someday. Oh wait, thats right, you can’t because Google=piracy and you are paid to support that view to the exclusion of logic or common sense.

RD says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Megaupload founder will likely never go to trial, says US judge

Cory Doctorow at 10:00 am Sat, Apr 21, 2012

Remember earlier this year when the New Zealand government and the US government conspired to send a SWAT team to arrest Kim Dotcom, founder of Megaupload, shut down the service, make 220 people unemployed, seize Dotcom’s assets, and deprive millions of users of access to their files? Well now a US judge says that the trial against Dotcom will probably never proceed, because the US government didn’t ever formally charge Dotcom. This wasn’t a mere oversight, either. They were not legally allowed to charge him. TorrentFreak reports:

“I frankly don’t know that we are ever going to have a trial in this matter,” Judge O’Grady said as reported by the NZ Herald.

Judge O’Grady informed the FBI that Megaupload was never served with criminal charges, which is a requirement to start the trial. The origin of this problem is not merely a matter of oversight. Megaupload’s lawyer Ira Rothken says that unlike people, companies can’t be served outside US jurisdiction.

“My understanding as to why they haven’t done that is because they can’t. We don’t believe Megaupload can be served in a criminal matter because it is not located within the jurisdiction of the United States,” Rothken says.

Megaupload’s lawyer adds that he doesn’t understand why the US authorities weren’t aware of this problem before. As a result Judge O’Grady noted that Megaupload is “kind of hanging out there.”

===========================================
He has not been charged with a crime. So the USG doesn’t have the ability (or desire, but thats a separate issue) to let him have access to what they seized, as that would be part of a criminal discovery process. So, by doing nothing, and since possession is 9/10th of the law, the USG is effectively denying access to the confiscated servers. QED.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

The USG secured access to the private servers and is reported to have reviewed them for evidence. It was reported that once the review was completed the company owning the servers retook full custody and control. To my knowledge the servers at all times remained at their owner’s facility in VA, and nothing on those servers was deleted by the USG or any of its agents.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

So you just admit that the USG is responsible for the destruction of said evidence. Just because they weren’t the ones that deleted the data directly doesn’t absolve them from guilt. They were the ones responsible for allowing the data to be conveniently deleted while denying Kim the ability to retrieve that data for use. They destroyed evidence. Had that been anyone else ‘destroying’ evidence in said manner against the government you bet the government would severely punish them. But because it’s the government doing it it’s fine.

That you are ethically lacking enough to argue minor semantics on an issue where the government is clearly wrong here shows what kinda ethically bankrupt people IP extremists are. You care nothing about justice just your bottom line. It’s sad that low life people like you even exist.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

As the extradition hearing nears, company lawyers say they’re unable to collect emails, files and other documents they claim will refute the allegations against MegaUpload. The company’s servers are hosted by Virginia-based Carpathia Hosting. The government initially locked the servers up while its agents collected evidence, but in January released all claims to them.

MegaUpload believed it would then be able to copy information from the servers itself. Rothken said he attempted to hire an electronic-discovery expert from KPMG to collect the data, but found that the cost would exceed $7 million. U.S. officials declined to release funds from MegaUpload’s seized assets to pay for the operation, the lawyer said.

Source: http://www.cnet.com/news/megaupload-lawyer-claims-the-feds-are-impeding-its-defense/

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Yes, “stolen,” because Dotcom hasn’t been convicted yet.

If the DOJ wanted to argue “asset freeze” because they had suspicion (and some reasonable evidence to back it up) that the funds were derived from illegal activity, I could support that logic. But to confiscate the assets before it’s even been proven that any crimes were committed? Sounds like theft to me.

David says:

Re: Re: Re:

Yes, “stolen,” because Dotcom hasn’t been convicted yet.

But his conviction is pretty much a formality, what with him without the money to pay a defense and the movie industry greasing and writing the DoJ opinions.

So since his conviction is only a formality, it would be a pity to let him waste money on it that is very much deserved by the DoJ to reward their ingenuity in turning the delivery of justice into a cash cow.

Yes, we can!

It Happened To Me (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

It happened to me. I paid my attorney a large downpayment to retain him. The USA government found out and froze that deposit. It has been frozen for years. My assets have been frozen for years. It is a civil case and I am not guilty of anything.

The evil cabal will NOT give us justice. They own us! We just have to continue to fight and not give up.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

and this is what IP laws amount to. Allowing others to literally steal from others just because they allegedly ‘infringed’ when they really did nothing wrong.

A: Infringement is not theft and is not inherently morally wrong.

B: Kim.com did nothing to encourage infringement and did everything he can to remove it from his servers. He shouldn’t be held responsible for the fact that some users may have used his servers for infringement anymore than the post office should be held responsible for the actions of those that use it unlawfully.

C: This isn’t really about infringement. It’s about certain middlemen that want to limit the distribution options of artists by refusing them the ability to distribute content without going through them so that they can wrongfully monopolize it and profit from it at the expense of both artists and the public. Copy protection laws are being used as a tool to allow these middlemen the ability to literally steal from everyone.

D: What these IP extremists are doing is literally theft and is morally wrong all in the name of defending against infringement, something that’s not morally wrong, for the real purpose of defending against competition.

michele (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

According to the citings above by RD, USG hasn’t [AND MAY NEVER] go to trial because they’ve never CHARGED him yet!?

As to the USG confiscating assets [at whim] and holding /destroying/profiting from them: It is and has been a freakish WINDFALL for the corrupt and incompetent infesting ” the US justice system” via search and seizure “probable cause” laws. perverted selective interpretations. Yep! Thats our justice system today.

JP Jones (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

And if China accused you of breaking one of their laws in a U.S. company you owned, I’m certain you would gladly walk directly into the PRC’s court, right? I’m sure a country who’s legal history includes the logic of “if you weren’t guilty, you wouldn’t have been accused of being guilty” will give you a fair trial.

Either way your entire idea is stupid. He is on legal bail in New Zealand, one of our closest allies. If the USG had legal grounds to require extradition, he would be here. He’s about as likely to get a fair trial as Edward Snowden would. If you think the U.S. courts aren’t influenced by political pressure you are horribly naïve.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Dotcom says he’ll come to U.S. if DOJ will guarantee him a fair trial and unfreeze his assets to cover legal expenses and living costs.

Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom Wednesday made the Department of Justice an offer he hopes it can’t refuse: He’ll drop his resistance to the extradition request filed by U.S. authorities with the New Zealand government, provided that prosecutors agree to a few simple demands.

“Hey DOJ, we will go to the U.S.,” said Dotcom Wednesday via his Twitter account. “No need for extradition. We want bail, funds unfrozen for lawyers & living expenses.”

The offer of a deal from German national Dotcom–formerly known as Kim Schmitz, and Kim Tim Jim Vestor–comes as his legal fees continue to mount. To date, he’s retained 22 lawyers in multiple countries to work on the case. The related legal costs have totaled millions of dollars and have been exacerbated by delays in his extradition hearing, with a New Zealand court Tuesday saying that the next hearing into the extradition request would be delayed from next month to next year. “

http://www.darkreading.com/vulnerabilities-and-threats/megauploads-kim-dotcom-offers-to-extradite-himself/d/d-id/1105269?

It’s the USG that doesn’t want him to be able to defend himself.

Also, IIRC (though I can’t find articles about it now), at one time he even offered to stand a civil trial in the U.S. against those that accused him of intentionally supporting infringement if they sued him. But the RIAA/MPAA weren’t interested in suing him, they would rather get the government to do their dirty work for them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

This is about ridiculous. He’s not a US citizen and not subject to the laws of the US government unless extradited by New Zealand. He does though have lawyers working on his behalf in the US, and thus satisfies the requirement as a claimant of the property acting on behalf of a non US citizen.
Perhaps China should pursue charges against Cisco now and seize all of John Chambers property due to the NSA scandal. I’m sure that would work well in the other direction.

Rekrul says:

Re: Re:

“Stolen”? While civil forfeiture appears to be a process that has been subject to abuse, there is nothing in this case that appears to be abusive conduct by the USG.

Yes, stolen. The 4th amendment to the US constitution is supposed to protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. Taking someone’s money and assets simply because they’ve been accused of a crime is completely unreasonable.

If KDC eventually ends up in the US and he’s found innocent of the charges, will the US government hand all his stuff back?

How is it in any way legal to take the property of someone who has never been convicted of doing anything wrong?

Tell you what, I think you’re a criminal, so I’m going to take your home, your car and your bank account. That’s all perfectly legal, right?

KDC has had numerous opportunities to appear before the federal court in Alexandria, VA and present a defense. That he has elected not to do so, thus waiving substantive rights and setting the stage for a default, is quite telling.

Maybe he doesn’t feel like he’ll get a fair trial, especially considering the fact that he isn’t an American and American laws don’t actually apply to him.

Or are you one of those people who think that US laws can be enforced worldwide? If so, are you ready to be shipped to the middle east to asnwer for all the things you’ve done in your life that have violated their laws? After all, if one country’s laws apply to foreign citizens, then all those other laws apply to you as well, right?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

He isn’t even a citizen of the United States.

What if China charged you with violating some dumb Chinese law, then used the trans-national elements of banking and “mutual assistance legal treaties” to forfeit all your assets when you didn’t show up to China to stand trial?

The US is rapidly losing its footing as the sort of nation-state to which a person can be presumed to receive a fair trial. All sorts of countries are looking to update their extradition laws on the basis of United States overreach in hacking and even anti-trust cases (where an Italian citizen doing business with a Japanese company was extradited from Germany for being in violation of US law!!)

LordEffington says:

Re: Re:

Thank you Mr Sock Puppet for the government. Obviously he does not want to show up to a land with a government that had a house raided in a foreign country for what essentially is SHOULD be a civil suit to wit: copyright violation…..Except….Except…wait for it….he wasn’t responsible for the copyright infringement. Safe Harbor should apply as it does to google which btw must be magically delicious because no one ever raids YouTube.

this is selective enforcement of a civil suit using criminal law tools. And I really don’t care to hear if congress made this a criminal charge because let’s face it you and I don’t get this sort of sweetheart deal protecting us from competitive forces like the hoards of illegal aliens coming across the border. Nooo …that’s only for Hollywood.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Since nobody in the world can believe that there is justice in the US, who in their right mind would go to the US if they are hunting you down like this.

I have a lot of US friends, I like a lot of US music, movies, games and other such things, but the US federal government are the most corrupt murderous deceitful, and all around scummy bastards on the face of this earth. This is just another case in point.

lee says:

Re: Re:

Court in Eastern District of Virginia? But of course! It’s where the feds bring all their really weak cases that they want a slam dunk from all the “suck up” government employees that will agree with anything Uncle Sam wants….

This is where they take other ridiculous cases like those against Julian Assange/Wikileaks

coolbeans2022 (profile) says:

Re: TROLL

Even though your obviously a T-R-O-L-L……
The reason I just watched a very funny twitter post of Kim’s showing him & his girl having fun driving up through the mountains, IS BECAUSE he never stepped foot in this country!!! 90% of federal prosecution is "possession of your @SS"!!!!
After locking him up their 1st argument in court to NOT GRANT HIM BAIL would have been he was a "FLIGHT RISK" as he is not a United States citizen…. which is laughable since their screwing him over like he was/is!!!!
What was wrong with America is it had been operated under a "UNI-PARTY" these last 30 years, after Reagan… with both sides intent on it’s destruction.

Brian Richard Allen (profile) says:

Re: Re: TROLL

Spot on about the past 30 years, though the un-and-anti-American uniparty’s destructive activities and actions can surely be tracked via the definitive traitor, Franklin Milhous not a typo Roosevelt back to the first full-blown fascist, Wilson — and likely even to ‘anti-truster,’ Theodore Roosevelt.

John Adams says:

I'm Back From the Grave

I could no longer rest.
All of the battles, arguments, progress, precedences we all suffered for back in the day… My God!
Everything we feared has come true! That paper my friend and adversary Thomas crafted is no longer of any value.
Might someone please disclose where the elusive principles of todays legal system might be displayed?
The ghosts of my colleagues and I will be forced to inspire a new generation of critical thinking freedom seeking patriots.
Beware! You have been warned!

marcus (profile) says:

Re: I'm Back From the Grave

Unfortunately the mainstream media is what most US people rely on for news and they consider cases like this boring anyway and are more interested in what the Kardasians or whatever they names are up to or the latest on the Caitlyn Jenner from the Bruce Jenner transformation. If they paid attention or cared, they would be terrified that their government is able to legally do this and get away with it because nobody pays attention.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: I'm Back From the Grave

As an American, I can say you are 100% correct.

However, there are some of us that are against civil forfeiture laws as we believe they are unconstitutional and should be abolished. One thing we pride ourselves with (or used to) was the rule of “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law”. I strongly feel that forfeiture laws circumvent this.

As for KDC, I think we all need to realize that copyright infringement is not a crime in NZ, so I don’t understand how the US has the authority to charge him with a crime.

It’s like this… I own a handgun in Georgia and it’s not a crime, but a prosecutor in Washington DC charges me with owning a handgun because it’s illegal in DC. Should I have to travel to DC to defend myself even though I’ve never been to DC?

I’m sure I’ve broken many many laws that are on the books in Iran, that are perfectly legal here. Can Iran seize all my assets and force me to travel there to defend myself against things that are illegal there?

David says:

Re: Re:

“legally” as in “by means and justifications grounded in performance art of the legal shade”. It’s the same manner in which “perjury” is a legal concept.

We are, after all, talking about the “Department of Justice” of the United States of America here. You would not expect a Ministry of Agriculture to dig holes, either.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The only thing funnier than you pretending that it’s funny when the government demonstrates yet another miscarriage of justice on behalf of the corporations who bought the government is that you come here to gloat about it like it’s not your own liberties and rights that are endangered by this kind of unchecked conduct.

antidirt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

The only thing funnier than you pretending that it’s funny when the government demonstrates yet another miscarriage of justice on behalf of the corporations who bought the government is that you come here to gloat about it like it’s not your own liberties and rights that are endangered by this kind of unchecked conduct.

I am gloating. I applaud the hardworking government actors who are bringing Dotcom to justice, kicking and screaming as he is. I sleep confidently and soundly every night knowing the countless sacrifices they make to ensure the protection of my own liberties and rights. Kudos on a job well done.

antidirt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

You must also be proud of police brutality because clearly those that received it, deserved it. Why even have a court process if it doesn’t produce the results you want. It is comforting to know that the government will stoop down and do criminal acts just to prove a point.

Police brutality is criminal and wrong. The government here is playing by the book. Dotcom wanted the benefits of being able to defend his property in the court, but not the burden of submitting himself to the court to face his criminal charges. I see no reason why he should get it both ways. Why should the court permit him to assert his rights when he’s dodging his responsibilities to that same court?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

The government here is playing by the book. Dotcom wanted the benefits of being able to defend his property in the court, but not the burden of submitting himself to the court to face his criminal charges. I see no reason why he should get it both ways. Why should the court permit him to assert his rights when he’s dodging his responsibilities to that same court?

Don’t you think that the court, at the very least, should have the duty to wait until there’s actually a criminal conviction before taking everything? Or do you believe that it is just and proper to take everything despite no crime being officially determined by a court? Think carefully. Your answer will reveal a lot about you.

antidirt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Don’t you think that the court, at the very least, should have the duty to wait until there’s actually a criminal conviction before taking everything? Or do you believe that it is just and proper to take everything despite no crime being officially determined by a court? Think carefully. Your answer will reveal a lot about you.

I’m sure you’ve already made up your mind about me before you asked the question. That said, what’s decided by the court is whether the property is forfeitable by a preponderance of the evidence. You’re suggesting a higher burden of proof, essentially, beyond a reasonable doubt. I don’t know enough about the policy reasons for using preponderance. I believe it comes from admiralty/maritime law. It seems to me that much of our property is susceptible to being taken away based on only a preponderance. Think tort law. If the burden of proof for forfeitures were raised, I wouldn’t really have an opinion on it until I understood the issues better. I don’t have a sufficient grasp of the pros and cons, so I don’t really have opinion. Judge away!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

You mean attacks with expletives-laden words that seem to be quite often directed at him? I have not seen him resort to gutter language, though he does at times respond in combative ways that merely feed the masses who will report him no matter how accurate, insightful and helpful his comments may be to persons trying to understand the facts, underlying issues, legal doctrines, etc.

As for showing the principals here to be wrong, clearly your consideration of what he has to say is sorely lacking, and this entire matter with Megaupload and its principals is an excellent example.

JMT says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

So basically the law is the law and you couldn’t possibly hold an opinion that is contrary to what the law says.

Why don’t you take some of the advice you regularly dole out to Mike and tell us what you think about the government taking peoples’ property before there’s even been a trial, let alone a guilty verdict. It’s not a legal question.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

I’m sure you’ve already made up your mind about me before you asked the question. That said, what’s decided by the court is whether the property is forfeitable by a preponderance of the evidence. You’re suggesting a higher burden of proof, essentially, beyond a reasonable doubt. I don’t know enough about the policy reasons for using preponderance. I believe it comes from admiralty/maritime law. It seems to me that much of our property is susceptible to being taken away based on only a preponderance. Think tort law. If the burden of proof for forfeitures were raised, I wouldn’t really have an opinion on it until I understood the issues better. I don’t have a sufficient grasp of the pros and cons, so I don’t really have opinion. Judge away!

I didn’t ask you what the law said was the standard. I asked you whether you felt it was just and proper for the government to take someone’s property without a criminal conviction by a court?

Could you please answer the question?

antidirt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

I didn’t ask you what the law said was the standard. I asked you whether you felt it was just and proper for the government to take someone’s property without a criminal conviction by a court?

Could you please answer the question?

I made clear that I haven’t given it much thought, and I’m not aware of the arguments for and against. I like to research issues before forming an opinion on them, unlike many people on Techdirt, especially Mike. That said, even if there is no underlying conviction, there is nonetheless a forfeiture action where the burden is on the government to prove the property is forfeitable. The underlying crime and the property’s connection to it still has to be proved. There’s ample due process protections for property owners. They, of course, have to submit to the court’s jurisdiction first. Dotcom wanted to show up in court to protect his property, but he didn’t want to face his charges in that same court. He wants the benefits, but not the burdens, of the legal system. I don’t think that’s right. I assume he didn’t show up to defend his property for the same reason he’s fighting so hard to not face his charges. He knows he’s going to lose. To answer your question to the best of my ability, I don’t think it’s necessarily unjust and improper, given the procedural protections. I think there might be policy reasons out there that would make me see it differently, but I just haven’t really looked into it. I understand that some think the process is being abused, but I don’t really know either way. Abuse is wrong, and I’m against it. But with Dotcom, I don’t see abuse. What do you think?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

Let’s just take two of your statements here:

“I like to research issues before forming an opinion on them, unlike many people on Techdirt, especially Mike.”

And:

“I assume he didn’t show up to defend his property for the same reason he’s fighting so hard to not face his charges. He knows he’s going to lose.”

Did you research that issue? Did you research the history of how the DOJ conducts criminal trials? Did you research how US Attorneys often railroad innocent people just to keep their conviction rates up? Did you research the history of how the civil asset forfeiture process is abused?

No. Of course you didn’t. You only pretend to do it when you want to attack Mike because you’re a jealous, petty little man-child. Stop being such a fucking hypocrite all the time AJ.

antidirt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

“I assume he didn’t show up to defend his property for the same reason he’s fighting so hard to not face his charges. He knows he’s going to lose.”

Did you research that issue? Did you research the history of how the DOJ conducts criminal trials? Did you research how US Attorneys often railroad innocent people just to keep their conviction rates up? Did you research the history of how the civil asset forfeiture process is abused?

No. Of course you didn’t. You only pretend to do it when you want to attack Mike because you’re a jealous, petty little man-child. Stop being such a fucking hypocrite all the time AJ.

Despite your abusiveness, I’m happy to respond to your point (though I think we’re getting pretty meta here).

Not all opinions are the same. There are opinions based on dogged research, there are opinions based on nothing at all, and there are opinions that fall somewhere in between. I began the second sentence you quoted with “I assume.” This was intended to signal to the reader that I’m about to offer something on the conjecture end of the spectrum. I literally indicated that it was an assumption before saying it.

That’s quite different than the opinion I have about Dotcom’s guilt. For that opinion, I relied primarily on the government’s superseding indictment and the summary of the evidence: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-edva/legacy/2013/12/20/Certified%20Mega%20Superseding%20Indictment%20%282-16-2012%29.pdf & http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-edva/legacy/2013/12/20/Mega%20Evidence.pdf I relied on the whole thing, not ignoring the parts I didn’t like.

I also based it of the filings from both parties, as well as the judge’s rulings, all of which I’ve read. On top of that, I’ve done extensive research into criminal copyright infringement, reading many treatises, decisions, law reviews, etc. My opinion there is well-formed and well-supported. It’s at the opposite end of the spectrum from conjecture.

I’m not jealous, but I can certainly be petty at times. I don’t think I’m being petty here with my criticism of Mike’s predictable defense of Dotcom. Mike is looking at the same sources at me, and, frankly, he’s reaching ridiculous opinions that just aren’t supported in reality. I’m not saying all of his points are ridiculous. On the contrary, he makes good points sometimes. That’s why I read Techdirt.

But some of his claims aren’t defensible, and it clear that he’s not interesting in trying to defend them. He often states these things as fact, when oftentimes they’re debatable at best and lies at worst. The difference between us is that Mike has no problem stating unsupported opinions as fact, while I prefer to do my homework beforehand. The irony is that his blog posts constantly call out the shortcomings in others, yet he’s so sensitive and dismissive of his own faults.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

What’s that saying now:

It’s very difficult to get an antidirt to understand a point of view if his job requires him to NOT understand it.

If you read the points of view (DOJ and Judge) espoused in above dokies where the espousers have an agenda to be corrupt then you canna trust anything they espouse. If you believe what they have written then you can only be considered a foolish homme and anything you therefore espouse should be considered as corrupt as the original espousers.

You are no different to any rank and file KKKer in their attitude of “kill the nigger’s” or if we use “Godwin’s Law”, you are no better than the rank and file SS Gestapo with their attitude of “kill the piggish Jews”.

You don’t seem to recognise that when a government or a government’s justice system and law enforcement uses corrupt means in doing its work, nothing that it then does is moral and they have become worse than anyone they are prosecuting, worse than the murderers, rapists, child molesters, drug runners, kidnappers, etc. that they purport to protect society from.

Because of the position and authority they hold, they MUST be held to a standard far above the citizen’s themselves and the moment they fail to operate at that standard and NOT immediately rectify the problem, they are no longer able to be trusted or even be respected even though the position they hold should still be respected.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I sleep confidently and soundly every night knowing the countless sacrifices they make to ensure the protection of my own liberties and rights.

I bet you would sing a different tune if some random drug informant pointed his finger at you and you had all of you possessions taken via asset forfeiture procedures before you were able to defend yourself against the false charges.

And just so you know, my opinion of you has just dropped about 20 notches AJ. I once believed you were, at the very least, a fair and just person, even when your arguments and opinions were opposed to mine. Not so much anymore. You seem to have already tried and convicted Dotcom based on one side of a story. That’s something morons do.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

That’s something morons do.

More to the point, apparently he goes to bed every night “confidently” ruminating on the DOJ’s silly multi-year quest to prosecute a guy who, even if cast in the very worst possible light, is still guilty of nothing more than messing with a film industry (that is still, and has never stopped, making tons of money) with a website that’s been gone for ages now and was instantly replaced with barely a hiccup in the availability of pirated content… and this thought comforts him and gives him sweet dreams.

That’s something morons do.

antidirt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

And just so you know, my opinion of you has just dropped about 20 notches AJ. I once believed you were, at the very least, a fair and just person, even when your arguments and opinions were opposed to mine. Not so much anymore. You seem to have already tried and convicted Dotcom based on one side of a story. That’s something morons do.

I’ve been reading the briefing from both sides. On the merits of the alleged crime, I’ve read the superseding indictment, and in these very comments, I’ve outlined several examples of alleged direct criminal infringement by Dotcom and friends. These aren’t third parties. These are the alleged principal coconspirators. Yet, Mike has been writing about this case for years, always questioning the government’s case, yet never acknowledging the alleged direct criminal infringement. Funny how you fault me for reaching an opinion based on the indictment, but you don’t fault Mike for purposely ignoring the parts of the indictment he doesn’t like while spouting legal opinions he won’t back up in the comments.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Funny how you fault me for reaching an opinion based on the indictment…

I’m not faulting you for your opinion. I’m faulting you for supporting the government’s actions in this case. If the government’s case is as rock solid as you claim, then why all the shenanigans in preventing Dotcom from mounting a viable defense? What is happening in this case doesn’t even come close to the concept of “justice” and even you should take issue with that.

antidirt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

I’m not faulting you for your opinion. I’m faulting you for supporting the government’s actions in this case. If the government’s case is as rock solid as you claim, then why all the shenanigans in preventing Dotcom from mounting a viable defense? What is happening in this case doesn’t even come close to the concept of “justice” and even you should take issue with that.

Funny how you cut off my point about Mike intentionally misrepresenting the government’s allegations. I don’t agree that Dotcom has not been permitted to mount a viable defense. He’s got extensive legal representation in two different countries. They’re throwing out every argument they can think of and appealing everything that doesn’t stick. He getting better representation than most. If you’re referring to the server thing, I don’t think there’s been any exculpatory evidence destroyed. The government has the server logs, the chats and emails (which amazingly seem to have been plaintext), the bank receipts, etc. What relevant information was on the servers that were lost? Wasn’t it just files stored by third parties that are not part of the government’s case? How could those possibly be exculpatory? Even if the government stipulates that each and every file lost were noninfringing, that doesn’t help Dotcom. No one can even posit a guess about what might possibly have been lost that was relevant. Besides, if the government destroyed evidence, that would help Dotcom. That’s the last thing the government wants to do.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Funny how you cut off my point about Mike intentionally misrepresenting the government’s allegations.

No, I just didn’t have a comment on that part. You are entitled to your opinions.

He’s got extensive legal representation in two different countries.

Huh. Last I heard his “extensive legal representation” bailed because the USG won’t allow him access to his own money.

http://www.techspot.com/news/58985-kim-dotcom-legal-team-exits-megaupload-founder-runs.html

The government has the server logs, the chats and emails (which amazingly seem to have been plaintext), the bank receipts, etc.

Out of context, cherry-picked evidence….yeah, that wouldn’t be real convincing to me if I was on the jury.

What relevant information was on the servers that were lost?

Good question. Now thanks to the efforts of the USG we will never actually know.

Besides, if the government destroyed evidence, that would help Dotcom. That’s the last thing the government wants to do.

Yeah, you would think so. That also makes the government’s actions all the more suspect to me.

antidirt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

No, I just didn’t have a comment on that part. You are entitled to your opinions.

It’s a fact. The indictment alleges many acts of direct infringement, for example, scraping YouTube and posting a pre-release version of the movie “Taken,” yet Mike has several posts claiming the government’s legal case makes no sense, and he makes no mention of these allegations. This has been pointed out to Mike many times, yet he never admits these allegations even exist. It’s weird how you don’t call him out for it.

Out of context, cherry-picked evidence….yeah, that wouldn’t be real convincing to me if I was on the jury.

How are the emails where the coconspirators discuss how they’re scraping YouTube at Dotcom’s insistence out of context and cherry picked? How are the files on the Megaupload servers that resulted from that scraping out of context and cherry picked? What about the movie “Taken”? How are the emails and the file itself out of context and cherry picked? No wonder you won’t fault Mike for intentionally lying about the existence of these allegations. You can’t even admit them yourself.

Good question. Now thanks to the efforts of the USG we will never actually know.

This is the best answer you, Mike, or his best bud Dotcom, can come up with. It’s not an answer. Note how no one can even hypothesize about any particular relevant evidence that has been lost. It’s a stupid argument, and it will be rejected like so many of the other stupid arguments in support of Dotcom.

jupiterkansas (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

So basicaly, Dotcom doing everything he can legally to defend himself and avoid prosecution just confirms that he’s wrong and guilty and deserves punishment.

But the government doing everything they can legally to prosecute and make it difficult for the accused to defend themselves is just playing by the book and perfecly fine.

And even if you never question the legality of what the government is doing, you certainly never question the morality of it because you firmly believe that if it’s the law, it must be just and good.

RD says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“I sleep confidently and soundly every night knowing the countless sacrifices they make to ensure the protection of my own liberties and rights. Kudos on a job well done.”

Can’t wait for your ass to get doxxed and see you screaming your innocence as they haul you off to trial, after seizing all your assets, then making you wait 3-5 years for your trial to start. You’ll be pulling a Ted Cruz-like turnaround so fast it will make it look like Superman spinning the earth backwards.

tqk (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

oh, right, those things written in private by the corporations …

In private?!? This is the United States Trade Representative, the President of The United States’ right hand man! What are you talking about, “private.”

Why’re you blaming corporations for this? Grr …

[I don’t actually know how you’re expected to respond to this if you do. No matter. I may have bugs up my butt about both corporations and politicos. Yup, that’s it.]

JMT says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“I sleep confidently and soundly every night knowing the countless sacrifices they make to ensure the protection of my own liberties and rights.”

Wow, spot the fanboi… What “countless sacrifices” are you talking about exactly? All I see are lawyers being paid with taxpayer dollars to do their damn job (badly so far).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“I sleep confidently and soundly every night”

That you are so morally bankrupt you don’t even consider the injustice the government has done here, instead opting to think of how they are protecting your selfish interests, should show everyone what kinda person you are. You won’t even consider the possibility that the government’s injustice outweighs your personal interests or even ask the question of whether or not the government has really done anything unjust because, frankly, you don’t care so long as your personal interests are served.

antidirt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Why should someone living in New Zealand, who has never set foot in the USA, be tried in any court other than those in New Zealand, where copyright laws also apply?

If you pick up the phone in the United States and threaten to kill someone on the other end in New Zealand, you’ve committed a crime in New Zealand, whether you’ve ever set foot there or not. Dotcom’s ties to the United States were significant, including many servers in Virginia, where he’s being charged. That seems to be his biggest mistake jurisdiction-wise.

Rikuo says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Dotcom’s ties to the United States were significant, including many servers in Virginia”

Question – what ties are/were there, APART from the servers in Virginia? You sound like there were ties that don’t include those servers. I’ve been following this case since day one and not once have I ever seen anything tying Kim Dotcom to the US, apart from those servers.

antidirt (profile) says:

Re: Re:

It makes me laugh that US claims that he is a fugitive for refusing to come to the US to face them. Funny how they don’t mention that Dotcom had to surrender his passport as a condition of his bail.

Are you seriously suggesting that he wouldn’t be allowed to go to the United States to face the charges? He’s out on bail because of these same charges. They would let him go. He’s a fugitive in part because he offered to come to the U.S. if the government would agree to his terms. They didn’t. He gets the same terms as every other criminal defendant. The power is and has been in his hands to submit. He’s chosen not to, and now it’s bit him hard with this default. He’s dug his hole, now he’s laying in it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Just like any other Non US resident who has never been to the US you mean? How would you like it antidirt, if Russia seized all of your money? They don’t have to prove anything. Once they have it, you have to prove you gained it all legally (their definition of legal). When you offer to come to Russia to fight the charges, they decline the offer and declare you a fugitive. Exactly the same thing.

antidirt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Just like any other Non US resident who has never been to the US you mean? How would you like it antidirt, if Russia seized all of your money? They don’t have to prove anything. Once they have it, you have to prove you gained it all legally (their definition of legal). When you offer to come to Russia to fight the charges, they decline the offer and declare you a fugitive. Exactly the same thing.

Did I operate a service in Russia, from servers hosted in Russia, making millions of dollars that I routed through Russian banks, while intentionally violating the rights of thousands of people in Russia? That would make it more of the same thing.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

This is the comment I will not stand a single second for. Companies are FORCED BY THEIR USERS to have fast and LOCAL servers to SERVE their users. They are not going to say “Oh you wanna access Facebook? Too bad, its in London and you have to wait while your traffic is routed.” No bullshit Facebook will have bought servers just like Google in multiple countries to serve the users of that country and guess what? YOUR ILLEGAL IN THAT COUNTRY.

Don’t even try to twist what I say and just READ for once in your life. Post a comment on a Youtube video, Owned by Google, where are those servers? Everywhere that people want to ACCESS it. Data is replicated. China doesn’t like your comments? WELL GUESS WHAT, GOOGLE SERVER IN CHINA. I will not stand for this bullshit anymore. Nobody can be held accountable for CORPORATE EXPANSION where servers HAVE to be in other countries to provide its services for other people at low latency and fast bandwidth. Maybe next time you should actually READ UP on how the Internet works and then MAYBE you will have some enlightenment.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

He’s a fugitive in part because he offered to come to the U.S. if the government would agree to his terms. They didn’t.

And what were those terms again? Oh yes, that they would guarantee a fair trial, and allow him access to his funds so he could actually afford to pay for a lawyer, instead of having to go with whatever poor, utterly unprepared sod that was assigned to him. Yes indeedy, quite the gall he has to be making demands like those.

antidirt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Maybe he could put some of his mansion rent into a legal team in the U.S. Or he could just use the same lawyers he used for this in rem forfeiture action, you know, the legal team he already has in the U.S. If that doesn’t work, I’m sure Mike would help him raise some money. Kickstarter! T-shirts, even!

ECA (profile) says:

WOW,

Isnt this why laws in the USA, for Corps, STOP things like this?
IN the USA you can not take an individuals money, if you are filing against the Corp..And you can not prosecute an individual if its a fault of the corporation..

Even IF’ the person was at fault..you have to have 110% proof that only an individual Created the fault on purpose and with forethought..

arouk (profile) says:

Re: WOW,

The DOJ along with the rest of the US government is bought and paid for by various private groups. In this case the MPAA and RIAA are flexing their muscles showing that due process and law doesn’t apply to them since they’ve got the money and the clout to step over it.

DOJ indeed. More like Department of Injustice. Dotcom is in a terrible position. They’ve basically got a gun to his head, told him that if he comes to the US they’ll fire, and then say “If you don’t come to the US we’ll take everything you own.” Either way they win and that’s what makes a good lawyer…right? It’s not about justice…it’s about power.

I used to be concerned about the constitution and freedom and all these ideological issues until I realized they’re all just propaganda. Our society has not yet evolved past the law of the jungle. I’m concerned…but not because I feel like my rights are being trampled…but that I’m just sitting in a cave with sabre tooth tigers wandering around looking for a meal.

Dotcom is just a tasty looking snack and the massive public doesn’t get it enough to be outraged.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

It's more embarassing to the US that these seizures are being expoused as "legal"

That it would be if it was argued that it was done in error or thanks to a convoluted interpretation of the law.

Like when we decide that torture is legal and that mass surveillance is legal and denying human beings rights without due process is legal it weakens the notion that legal in the US has anything to do with what is right or good.

And then when a person advocate that the legality of such things is based on it being right, that would raise question as to that person’s own sense of morality.

Anonymous Coward says:

HOW can you be a criminal,
when the doj takes your money,
money u need to pay lawyers,
and the doj has unlimited time money to fight u in court .
YOU are innocent until proven guilty ,
even if his company upload a few files ,
music etc ,
which is not proven yet,
that,s not a criminal offence.
ALSO its been shown the police and security services
broke some new zealand laws .
But this is been ignored ,
if he was a german or eu citizen,
it would have been hard for the doj to take most of his money,
before he even appeared in court ,
or was Proven to have committed a criminal act.
he is not a us citizen,
this charge he is a fugitive is a legal tactic to
justify taking all his money.
theres 100s of people in us jails right now,
cos they are poor,
ie they don,t have the money to pay their bail.

Anonymous Coward says:

Looks to me like the USA is now worse than Nazi Germany, North Korea, ISIS, and the whole Middle east including Israel.

If a country can just take what they like, what is the point in laws anymore? I should now be able to go and take what I like at any time and claim its for the poor Movie Studios. you know they are never going to see one cent of this money, but it is for them. Guess I should be able to go and steal millions for all the crap I have watched and listened to over the years put out by the **AA’S.

arouk (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Well the USA laundered Nazi money at the start of WW2 (prescott bush), helped to create the North/South Korean divide in the Korean War, COMPLETELY facilitated the power vacuum and instability in the region (intentionally) that led to ISIS, and were major proponents in not only the creation of the state of Israel and the theft of Palestinian lands to do so, but also in arming them with weapons (including nuclear bombs).

So to say they are ‘worse than’ these things is kind of misleading. They ARE these things.

marcus (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Unfortunately as a result of the “war on drugs” and the “war on terrorism” most Americans don’t see a problem with law enforcement coming into your house in the middle of the night shooting your dog and seizing your property because someone claimed you were a drug dealer or terrorist. Some Americans are waking up but most figure that this will never happen to them since they are doing nothing wrong. They don’t understand how this abuse of Constitutional powers will eventually be used against them. A lot of Americans still support the Patriot Act even with the revelations from Edward Snowden and others about abuses by the Government. They are happy that law enforcement makes money off of asset forfeiture instead of them having to pay more in taxes not realizing that someday they could end up with their assets seized for a crime they are innocent of.

Anonymous Coward says:

That’s where the whole “fugitive” bit comes in. Because Dotcom won’t come to the US, he’s been deemed a fugitive, and thus the Judge simply hands over all of his stuff to the US government.

Assume for a moment we are talking about a reputed cartel leader, never been to the US but indicted for drug crimes and fighting extradition from a third country to the United States. Yet the US moves to seize his (presumably ill-gotten) assets declaring him a fugitive from justice. That shit happens all the time and no one cares because he selling dope not engaging in infringement. So it seems the issue is not whether it is legitimate and proper (it is)- but whether it is legitimate in an infringement case.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

There is one huge flaw with your example, assuming that US law applies to persons living in other countries. That assumption is one of the reasons that the US is hated by some cultures.

I think that you must be slow or something. If a Mexican drug lord ships heroin to the US, do you think he’s immune from prosecution simply because he resides in Mexico??? The nexus for Dotcom was his use of servers located in the Southern District of Virginia.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The drug lord is subject to Mexican law, and those in the US who buy drugs are subject to US law. Otherwise, by your logic US drug buyers can be tried under Mexican law. From what is actually happening on the ground, Mexico has much more reason to bring US drug buyers to trial, as the drug trade is doing much more damage to their country than it is to the US.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Just a tiny difference between drugs and infringing files. You know, just a bit. In either case though, seizing assets of someone based on accusation alone, someone who has never stepped foot in a given country, is not something that should be done or accepted.

Open up that particular can of worms, and you could have any country on the planet seizing funds or assets, from US companies or people, or anyone else on the planet, and then justifying their theft by claiming that the accused refusing to travel to their country is evidence enough of their guilt.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Maybe it shouldn't be legit and proper in the dope case.

In my head this keeps coming back to the Capone case. We couldn’t peg him on anything so we engaged in a very creative interpretation of the law (Tax Evasion and then with some fuzzy logic to extend the statute of limitations so that Capone was still culpable).

It’s okay because we know Capone was a dirtbag, right?

Except that it served as a precedent for practice that now extends to non-dirtbags. The state decided it could get away with creative interpretation and now it’s abused all. the. fucking. time.

Back to the present, Dotcom’s case is showing a corruption of justice. The DoJ’s actions against Dotcom is (amongst a ton of other incidents) raising the validity of the US Courts to fairly adjudicate.

And that means that all our prisoners, much like the prisoners in North Korea, are not criminal prisoners but political prisoners. Right down to the psycho-killers and terrorists that we know did it.

That means that Mansion and Kaczynski may yet get their reprieve, on USA Bastille day.

Anonymous Coward says:

The lesson is:

If you are doing anything that isn’t popular with a major U.S. corporation, don’t invest in property in the U.S. and don’t keep your capital in U.S. dollars.

This is really the DoJ waging a war against the U.S. treasury. It is self defeating, because the MOST important asset the U.S. has as a sovereign nation is full faith and credit in the dollar.

In the aggregate, this trend is seditious. It doesn’t matter whether Kim Dot Com is a criminal. If you wage war on the dollar, you are waging a war on the people. The damage to the United States reputation caused by these utterly transparent extra-jurisdictional prosecutions does more damage to the U.S. as a whole, than the DoJ’s smash and grab will ever recover in claims.

tqk (profile) says:

But it seems an absolute travesty of concepts like due process for the government to be able to take all of his money and stuff based on purely procedural reasons having to do with a separate criminal case that hasn’t even been tried yet.

… Leaving him begging a judge for a few million just to assemble the requisite legal team to attempt to defend himself.

Anytime you want out of that crazy country Mike, I’ll swear to and sign anything on your behalf. Just say the word.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Unfortunately, we live in a crazy world. In many ways, America may still be the least bad of the bunch. Many have been corrupted by US government through phony “trade agreements” which often have little to do with actual trade – and according to classical free trade theory are unnecessary, anyway, any country being able to realize the benefits of free trade by unilateral action – and much more to extending a domestic legislative agenda internationally, tied aid and sometimes outright intimidation. Those who haven’t are generally dingbat crazy for their own, domestic, reasons or because they are in bed with other crazy nations.

Even the relatively sane countries tend to tolerate a few things that others would find intolerable for cultural or historic reasons.

Leaving is rarely a way to find a better country – reform is usually a better way. And if you can’t find a way to meaningful reform, it is usually because you haven’t looked hard enough.

Ton says:

It’s kind of ridiculous anyone is on here defending Kimdotcom. Everyone knows full well MU hosted copyrighted material ( I was one of the ones watching said copyrighted material in its heyday). So therefore he profited/made money off of someone else’s work and creations. Of course its going to get confiscated… Don’t be stupid and do something the Govt was clearly cracking down on. There is a difference between fighting for internet rights and sharing material for the greater good and making a profit off of sharing that material which is what Kimdotcom did and no one seems to realize the guy is just as bad as any crooked wall street exec.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Extrajudicial Seizure of Kim Dotcom

Yeah. We used the same excuse to cleverly interpret law to convict Al Capone of Tax Evasion since we didn’t yet have laws to get him for what he’d done. That is, we knew he was a rat bastard so fuck the law, let’s find a way to get him locked up. Right?

Except now our jail cells are impacted with right bastards the guilt of whom we’ve presumed, because throwing people in jail is what cops and judges like to do. Really. Some have said as much that it’s better to lock up a hundred innocent Americans than let a criminal walk.

Whatever Kim Dotcom did, didn’t warrant us importing a SWAT raid ti New Zealand just for him, or seizing all his assets so that he can’t afford a proper defense (an action which, incidentally, belies a lack of faith in the justice system), nor constructing a rap sheet of super-ambiguous charges like conspiracy. Just conspiracy.

Dotcom isn’t a hero for Megaupload. He’s a hero for fighting back against a ruthless, corrupt Department of Justice. Because what they’re trying to do to him, they’d gladly do to you next, if someone dislikes you enough to bury you.

Jimjams says:

Interesting

So the U.S want kimdotcom to pay for the public miss use of his services but not these services which are the same cough utorrent cough piratebay cough 100 other torrent sites that do the same thing, which make me believe it wasn’t his site but the money or information passed on his services and they want it back so desperately that they act like kids with bending the laws. We are not all perfect 80% of people break the law in terms of the internet usage so what make kimdotcom so attractive to the U.S? He has money #1 he provided internet storage service and transfer #2 …………………….. I also noticed National party are very pro U.S Brown Nose some might say, Or money can only be one of two. I’m not against U.S but it seems very fishy to me…. very criminal on U.S part of this.

john wayne says:

joke

I’ve been following Kim Dotcom for a while & watching what hes been doing. He seems to be a pretty honest person & trying to make the world more safe & secure with his newer inventions and ideas. I honestly can’t believe the “good” people (who are supposed to be the authoritise) don’t see through the stupidity of what they are doing to him. It’s fucking cruel. I hope he gets whatever funding he needs for the best legal advise known to man and eventually wins his case. I only wish he had more legal advise before creating megaupload so he never got in the shit. He never meant any harm, but maybe some of the lawful policies he userd weren’t clear, it’s cause him to potentially lose all his fortune? No mate, that’s wrong!

marcus (profile) says:

Re: joke

Even with the best legal advice before he created Megaupload, he could still be in violation of at least one US law. Some estimate that the average US Citizen commits at least three felonies a day without even knowing it. Even if he isn’t breaking any laws at the time he created Megaupload, he could be in violation of some future law or the US Government could twist the meaning of a law if they seriously want to go after someone.

Brian Richard Allen (profile) says:

United States of America v Kim Dotcom

In America, in 2015, there are more law students in schools than there have ever been lawyers on Planet Earth. Almost every one of them is a bloody “Democrat” and of the genre fascist-Leftard that froth’n’foam-flecked zealously chases after and facilitates everything evil, wrong and failed and to the detriment of all that is Good, Right and Successful.

Having, for decades and particularly since the time on Earth of the loathsome and fearsome traitor, F D Roosevelt, insidiously, arrogated all “legal” powers unto itself, that foul and criminal claque already effectively owns, operates and controls America’s “law schools” and “judges” and rule-by-fiat “courts” and uses them to control, to intimidate, to stand-over, to shakedown — and to advance pretty much only its own evil.

New Zealand’s somewhat smug yet slippery-slope-sliding-toward-authoritarian-regulatory (fascistic) government is of the habit of RATifying America’s worst “laws.” Draconian such “law” related to taxation and banking, as recent examples

Here’s one American wishes you Good Luck with all of that, Herr Dotcom.

Kia Ora!

Brian Richard Allen

Brian Richard Allen (profile) says:

#teaparty #auspol

arouk: ….. the creation of the state of Israel and the theft of “palestinian” lands to do so ….

Goebbels Standard Big Lie!

The Nation of Israel has historical roots dating back more than 4000 years in the lands to which you refer and including those that were for a time called Trans Jordan and are presently occupied by the less than 100-years-old so-called “4000-years-old hashemite ‘kingdom’ of” Jordan. Also part of the historically Jewish Nation’s lands and sovereign territories but now Arab-occupied are Judeo and The Shamron (Samaria) and the Gaza Strip.

The people you call “palestinians” are a collection of Bedouin, “Jordanian,” Saudi, Lebanese, Syrian, Egyption, Yemini and various other assorted moslem Arabs who began calling themselves “palestinian” only during the late 1960s, having just been invented as such by the mass-murderer, Yasser Arafat.

Unless the actual, moslem-Arab, occupiers are so (accurately) identified, Judea and Samaria, the so-called “occupied territories” — and Gaza — upon all of which the self-styled “palestinians” squat, are no such thing. But are, (including in international “law”) definitively, “Disputed Territories.”

As for America “arming Israel with nuclear bombs:” America is more likely to learn from the Israelis than to teach them. Especially when it comes to the art of self defense. To the art of war!

And nor did the Nazis need (nor use) America to launder their loot. For that, they had the, much more conveniently-located, Swiss. And although then president, the “Democrat,” Harry Truman, had a hand in effectively reversing Douglas McArthur’s, America’s and our allies great Korean victories (and when was there ever a great American victory traitorous “Democrats” didn’t subsequently reverse?) Kim Il-Sung and his co-monster cohort, Mao Tse Tung, imposed their evil on the Koreans and split the nation.

Am Yisrael Chai!

Brian Richard Allen

Anonymous Coward says:

The American today is as pro-war, pro-capitalist, pro-empire, and pro-materialist as it was then, but is facing a threat it can no more defeat than “terrorism”: total economic, political and social FAILURE; and from that failure, collapse. Because America has been the preeminent world power financially, militarily and politically since 1945, it refuses compromise; nor can it surrender one front to save another; nor can it admit defeat; nor can it accept global competitiveness; nor can it honor international law; nor does it want to honor the social contract with its own people; nor can it accept dissent or protest without state-sponsored suppression conducted by militarized police forces; nor can it accept freedom of thought and action without expanding its totalitarian spying and surveillance methods; nor can it stop the anarchic algorithms on Wall Street from sucking blood out of the nation and into the hands of market parasites, insiders, vigilantes and CEOs; nor can it stop the Generals in the Pentagon and in Brussels from constructing new exorbitantly expensive weapon systems, provoking Cold Wars with Russia and China, invading and occupying tiny resource-rich nations to control the world’s energy and flows, boastfully assassinating sovereign leaders and citizens, and now threatening anyone anywhere with murder or indefinite detention without trial or jury; nor can America stop the world from seeking to unseat USD as the reserve currency (one key motive to most of the above). Nor can America stop the world from HATING The United States of America

Brian Richard Allen (profile) says:

Re: Anonymous Coward

#teaparty #auspol

1. Bullshht;

2. Are you taking something for that?

3 …. America cannot stop the world from HATING The United States of America …. Or, rather, “the world” cannot stop itself from hating America. Such is the grip upon it of its own Malignant Envy. But;

4. America can handle it. We’re a magnanimous mob!

Brian Richard Allen

Mr Brightside (profile) says:

How The US Government Legally Stole Millions From Kim Dotcom

The DOJ have already decided what will happen to him (Kim dotcom) when or if he arrives in America (land of the free??)
He will be given an option, admit guilt and sighn away his assets, in return he and his other “co-conspirators” can walk free under home detention laws.
Convicting them and sending them off to prison is too risky. it will never die down and keep coming back to haunt the Doj again and again. They will propbably be hoping like hell the plane crashes with him on it on the way over.
Im hoping he wins and stays in NZ .Im hoping he doeant turn into a bitter and twisted man after all this, but how can it not.
I wish Mr Dotcom all the best. And all the haters can go to hell.

Alberto says:

Hablan de que él lucro con Piratería, que les facilitaba, pero las Discográficas lucran y doblan la ley de derecho de autor y la ley de libre comercio.
Un artista solo recibe miseria de lo recaudado de sus discos, si no tiene varios echos simplemente tiene que tener otro trabajo.
Un libre comercio es que todo producto llegue a todos los países, pero no siempre esta la escusa de impuestos, o etc, pero la verdad es que impiden que llegue, para venderlo 10 o mas veces el valor y a si ellos ganan mas, ellos mismos comente el delito, y después se quejan de la piratería, son unos idiotas que se les subió la plata a la cabeza…
Que el compadre gane el caso y vuelva a crear un servidos de datos…
Saludos.

Victor says:

I dont get it

I am not a lawyer or anything like that but what bothers me is how another country can control others. If his business is not in USA territory even though it reaches out to it by internet, the Country where he has the business should be the only one prosecutor. This shows how other Countries let USA bullied them, like they have no balls. This guy has never visited USA and it doesn’t matter but just to pint out.

Bruce Bates says:

Re: I dont get it

It has to be this way. If it were not this way, the entire internet would cease to exist…. or at the very least nearly every major software company on earth would go broke.

What you are saying is it should be okay for people in some third world country to steal microsoft windows (for example) and give it away freely to everyone on earth, and since they are not US citizens they should not ever face any penalty (specifically if their nation allows them to steal it and give it away).

Now of course you could say “then microsoft stops doing business with that country” but that doesn’t stop someone from using VPN’s, TOR, nor anything else to circumvent that and buy a copy to give away free to everyone on earth… again without facing charges.

Get it now?

Bruce Bates says:

Funny the ignorance of the masses. Its very simple. No extradition is required for someone to face changes. Its amazing no one wants to understand that.

KDC was charged by the US and a court date was set. The minute he didn’t appear, the minute an extradition was required, thats called “failure to appear”.

Seems most of you think the extradition process is a part of the US legal system. Its not. Nothing requires the US wait for an extradition.

Now here is the real kicker to all this. What if he wins the extradition battle in NZ? That means NZ won’t send him to the US. HOWEVER that doesn’t mean the US still doesn’t see this as not appearing in court. And what if he looses and NZ does extradite him? Its STILL NOT KDC WILLFULLY ENTERING THE US TO FACE CHARGES.

No matter how you want to see this, the fact an extradition is needed AND the fact he is fighting that in NZ courts, BOTH mean according to US law, he has NOT appeared before our courts.

Failure to appear, means instant award to the prosecution just like it always means when someone doesn’t willfully face charges. This is NOT the same as if he appeared or filed notions for VALID REASONS. Simply saying “I dont agree with the US and theirfore will fight extradition” is NOT a VALID LEGAL REASON TO NOT APPEAR IN A US COURT ROOM.

Brian Richard Allen (profile) says:

…. Under this absence of logic, the silly sookie, Sayyid Soetoro “administration” department of injustice could do the same to all of the Clintons’ assets. Given that by their own admission, when (along with a looted $400,000.00-worth of its furniture and fittings) they Left the White House, claiming to be “broke” — but are now worth Hundreds of Millions of Dollars ….

Not a fair comparison. The Cli’tons are prima facie RICO-racketeering career mobsters. And Mr Dotcom has not so much set foot – ever – in America – let alone stolen anything there.

Brian Richard Allen (profile) says:

Re: Abuse of Power

…. It is an abuse of power ….!

It is symptomatic of the fact that for decades, already, the vast organized-criminal hordes that trade as the “Democratic” party, have infiltrated and have corrupted and systemically and systematically employ every aspect of America’s every level of government and every level of its court,s to control people’s lives and to loot and thieve and steal every Cent they can get their hands on.

Better pray that President Donald John Trump is able to keep his promise to “drain the swamp.”

To rid America, that is, of the “Democrats” Deep State.

yellow_astra (user link) says:

Re: Re: Abuse of Power

the usual illiterate crap from someone that can’t read but somehow manages to write. Civil forfeiture was pushed again in the 80s from the Reagan administration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#Legal_origins

Better search before you claim something than to be an idiot at the end.
Wonderful to find out that it was pushed from the Reagan administration in the 80s.
So don’t blame someone else now for the crap that civil forfeiture is.

David says:

STOP THE BS!!!

KIM DOTCOM knew exactly that his members were violating copyright laws and he failed to take proactive measures to stop them. He FUCKED WITH a powerful industry that makes deals with the US government. He should have tried to stop his members from copyright violations then shutdown the site after failing to stop his members then use the millions to start a more legitimate site. His greed put him in this mess. In fact, his failure was a “conspiracy” with his members to violate copyright laws. He better move to a country that wont allow extradition because America could jail him for the rest of his life….

Invisible Tentacle (profile) says:

Re: STOP THE BS!!!

Thank you, Techdirt drives traffic with these click baity articles intended to rabble rouse its thieving torrenting base of deranged and mostly angry nerds.

These is real suffering going on in Hollywood and Broadway right now, thanks in large part to Kim Dot.CON.

An actor starting out their career in Hollywood these days is more likely to end up on the streets turning to drugs or prostitution because the acting jobs simply don’t pay as much anymore.

SaltyBrains (profile) says:

Re: STOP THE BS!!!

operating a file-sharing site is not illegal (regardless of what the users upload). operating a post office is not illegal (regardless of what people post to each other). hell even printing ‘healthy’ on a box of sugar pop candy breakfast cereal is not illegal (but probably should be). etc.

is KDC a moral person? probably not but its irrelevant. he did not actually break the law as it was at that time.

so your point means nothing.

Brian Richard Allen (profile) says:

Talking of BS?

How wonderful to be able to know what others, thousands of miles away, are thinking and to own the criminal arrogance to, thus situated, try them for their thought crimes, convict them — and sentence them to serve out their lives in prison.

At worst, Mr Dotcom might be civilly sued for the breach of copyright of which you write, whereas he has (by the Two-Bit Kapo/globalist, John Keys, acting on behalf of a corrupt “justice” system in a country Mr Dotcom has never visited) been arrested, harassed, bullied, threatened and abused and stripped of his wealth and of all of his possessions and of much of his liberty.

Invisible Tentacle (profile) says:

Theft of Intellectual property is a crime.

As every moral individual knows, stealing other people’s intellectual work, whether that be music or movies, is the exact same crime as if you walked into a store and walked out with that music or movie. It’s called shoplifting.

If individuals stealing software, music, & movies are shoplifters, then Kim Dotcom is a bank robber.

Because of Kim people in the Arts communities are suffering tremendously. Workers are being cut from studios because they are being robbed left and right by people like Kim. Thanks to this and pay cuts, an up and coming executive at a major studio may have to work for years or decades even before they can afford luxury automobiles or homes.

So yes, the FBI is doing the right thing here, because Kim stole that money from the hard working people of Hollywood, and he deserves to be punished.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Maximum Poe

As every moral individual knows, stealing other people’s intellectual work, whether that be music or movies, is the exact same crime as if you walked into a store and walked out with that music or movie. It’s called shoplifting.

This is either brilliant You wouldn’t download a bear level parody, or the most extreme interpretation of copyright maximalism.

And I can’t tell.

ECA (profile) says:

Re: If DotCom can get to court..

If he can get to a fair court..What are the odds he get a fair trial??

Or will he get a chance for an independent court?

As far as Iv seen posted, everything done was ILLEGAL..
from Basic entrapment to Paying off another country to do the dirty work.

All this because the movie industry couldnt PROVE ANYTHING legally. And our gov. had/has no control over another nation..

IF’ he is ever found not guilty, the USA gov. is going to need to pay ALLOT of money for lost profits and other inconveniences..

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: If DotCom can get to court..

If the United States can be held liable, it can be argued that it also held back cloud services for years, and owes reparations to the internet community at large for creating an environment in which cyber lockers could not be trusted to have immunity from politics.

Actually that could set an interesting precedent, if a belligerent nation could be held liable tothe international community for disrupting net services in an enemy country and the costs were high enough it could discourage the bomb-heavy form of warfare the United States is so fond of.

barbara guillette (profile) says:

asset forfeiture

This has been used in the US by local police to steal assets from people who were stopped by the local police,,, stopped on the highway. Moneys and all assets were stripped without legal right or cause, from issuance of a speeding ticket, the US has turned into a corrupt nation starting from the top down.
Our main fear is the constitutional convention fueled by the Koch brothers to actually change our constitution .

The antichrist? says:

SHTF

To economical war we go !
This is the time we stock up. I’ve invested my savings into crypto this year. Been laddering btc and buying with fiat. Everything between 5.9k-7.6k is my entery.

The defenition of who is getting rich the next years are really fucking out there. The entier economy of the world can shift the next years. Leaving people like me to be the next stage investors of the world.

Crypto is the future. Buy BTC and stay in BTC if you’re scared of the market. Read up on how you store them in a safe way. Do not trade alts until the bear market is over, unless you know wtf you are doing. Crypto really is a dog eat dog world.

Comet Completion (profile) says:

this kind of stuff is the reason TRUMP failed to keep the majority in the house
because he didnt fix this fucking dictatorship shit that happens in the USA
he would have had it so easy to do so just call the right people and let them go through all the legal horror that have gone oncsince President BUSH the mini took all the freedoms away and decided to TORTURE innocent people and BRAG ABOUT IT

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...