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

from the of-course-not dept

We already noted that the New Zealand judicial system apparently isn't as willing as the US expected to rubberstamp approval of the extradition of Kim Dotcom. Part of that ruling was a requirement that the US turn over the evidence they're using against Dotcom, so that he can counter it in fighting against the extradition. However, it appears that the US is still fighting this, having the New Zealand prosecutor (who is fighting on their behalf) argue that Dotcom should only be allowed to see a single document out of the 22 million emails the FBI collected and that this really isn't a matter for the New Zealand courts to concern themselves with, as they should just let the Americans handle it.
Crown lawyer John Pike argued that there was no need for Dotcom to have access because he was not being tried in New Zealand.

The judge in the extradition case needed only to decide if there was a case for him to answer in the US, Mr Pike said, and that question was answered by the record of case.
That's kind of amazing when you think about it. He shouldn't be allowed to even see the evidence against him... even if it might prove that there is no "case for him to answer to in the US." That's what's so troubling about the US position on cases like this one and the O'Dwyer/TVshack case. They seem to assume that it shouldn't be of any concern if they drag someone thousands of miles across oceans to face trumped up charges in the US.

Filed Under: extradition, fbi, john pike, kim dotcom, new zealand

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2012 @ 6:16pm


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add Your Comment

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

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.