NZ Supreme Court Will Review Kim Dotcom's Extradition Case
from the not-over-yet dept
Back in March, we noted that while a district court had ordered the US to hand over the evidence it was planning to use against Kim Dotcom, an appeals court had overturned that ruling, and said that the evidence wasn’t needed for the extradition fight. Dotcom immediately appealed to New Zealand’s Supreme Court, who has now said that it will review that ruling as well, so this case will continue to drag on for some time.
Filed Under: doj, evidence, extradition, fbi, kim dotcom, new zealand, supreme court
Companies: megaupload
Comments on “NZ Supreme Court Will Review Kim Dotcom's Extradition Case”
The damn hate bastards are learning they do not control the world and there are still some people left with integrity.
Dotcom stole millions.
Crime pays at least enough for delaying justice.
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where Mike sez: uploader + file host + links site + downloader = perfectly “legal” symbiotic piracy.
16:12:19[r-145-1]
Re: Dotcom stole millions.
Are you the Official Techdirt Troll?
Or just a wannabe?
Re: Re: Dotcom stole millions.
She’s got a girl-boner for Mike. I’ve seen her blog; she can’t write worth a damn and comes off as a crazy cat lady, except it’s hateful pro-maximalist rants instead of pictures of kitties.
Re: Re: Re: Dotcom stole millions.
Please share with the rest of class. Her blog?
Re: Re: Re:2 Dotcom stole millions.
Ask and you shall receive. This is the kind of thing she comes out with over and over again because copyright is property and infringement is theft, or something.
http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2012/06/richard-odwyer-must-be-extradicted-and-prosecuted.html
Through the comments of OOTB1 and look out for keywords such as “collectivist”, “Google” and “Pirate,” and you’ll see it’s her. She pops up on tech blogs in an effort to push back against the “eeeeevilllll” pirates and their pushback against her beloved maximalism.
Re: Re: Re:3 Dotcom stole millions.
Wow. Actually, not wow. What I saw there is pretty tame for the copyright trolls. Comparing links to a robber advertising empty homes (a robber who steals physical items while committing trespass, mind you) is par for the course for trolls. I love the amount of comments, all three of them. Somewhat surprising that one of them is a dissenter, rightly calling out the bullshit.
I also love the second comment there, saying “I’m not convinced there isn’t a crime he’s committed in the UK”. Wrong. If memory serves, O’Dwyer was either found not guilty at trial or the UK police investigated but didn’t take him to trial (I can’t remember which). Meaning, that he has not been declared a criminal! But when has that stopped the copyright cartels, they’re all about sidestepping the courts and going for Punishment Upon Accusation.
Re: Re: Re:4 Dotcom stole millions.
Here’s another comment from her, talking about the Boston Bombings.
“DNSSEC that in fact no major companies have adopted now” [even though her article and comments were talking about CISPA in privacy concerns she switched to a rant about piracy]. Yeah, no major companies have DNSSEC. Except for, ya know, Comcast, one of the largest ISPs in the US.
http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2013/04/you-should-be-upset-that-cispa-didnt-pass-and-dont-gloat-it-will-be-back.html#comments
Re: Re: Re:3 Dotcom stole millions.
Dammit, I’ve wanted to forget that blog ever existed since the last time it was linked here. That place is where brain cells go to die tormented synaptic deaths.
Re: Dotcom stole millions.
I can sense the butthurt from aaaaaaaaaaall the way over here.
Please, do carry on equating copyright infringements to theft, you’re certainly going to go somewhere.
Re: Dotcom stole millions.
You and your creative accounting overlords would know best.
Re: Dotcom stole millions.
out_of_the_lube just hates it when due process is enforced.
Maybe out_of_the_lube is really John Steele. That’s why he wants less Prenda articles unlike other people with a brain.
Re: Dotcom stole millions.
Blue also stole millions (of brain cells).
Re: Re: Dotcom stole millions.
Actually he is the victim of such a theft. Or is it copyright infringement. I always get the two mixed up because they are so similar.
Re: Dotcom stole millions.
Perhaps you could back up your allegation with facts? Also since you cannot steal IP.. you can only INFRINGE, exactly what was stolen, and how?
Re: Re: Dotcom stole millions.
It’s even sillier than that if you think about it. Dotcom didn’t personally infringe on anyone’s copyright, he merely created a platform that others used to infringe (and many others used for perfectly legal activity).
So, even if you bought into the bullshit that infringement = theft, Dotcom didn’t steal anything. At most, he merely profited from the actions of others, over which he had no direct control.
As with his idiotic attacks on Kickstarter for daring to make a profit from the service they provide (while not having a clue what that service actually is), ootb fails to even understand what he’s attacking. He has no facts, just an obsessive need to attack this site.
Re: Dotcom stole millions.
You want to talk about stealing? How about the fact that the content corporations have repeatedly stolen our culture from us all? How about the fact that they’ve stolen our freedom of speech and expression so they can have monopoly control over speech? No OOTB, the “content creators” are the real thieves and criminals.
Re: Dotcom stole millions.
Provide evidence to your claim or shut the fuck up.
I’d be surprised if the Court didn’t elect to simply flush the toilet. ridding NZ of this particular piece of shit.
I seem to recall the Fat Bastard volunteered to come to the US to stand trial if only money for his defense was released; and subsequently remember some $3 million being ordered released by a judge.
I sure hope he doesn’t play cards wirh other inmates when he does get to the States. He’s not much on bluffing.
Re: Re:
You probably shouldn’t be deigned with a reply, given your gratuitous ad hominen attacks and clear lack of knowledge about the case, but for the benefit of other readers, the funds released were for his defence in New Zealand – the DoJ protested this strongly and has called the release of funds for legal defence ‘outrageous’. In the US, the DoJ has done everything to prevent MU from exercising a constitutional right to adequate defence, including writing to law firms to get them off the case for alleged ‘conflict of interest’
Re: Re:
I’d be surprised if the Court didn’t elect to simply flush the toilet. ridding NZ of this particular piece of shit.
You’d be amazed at how well liked he appears to be in New Zealand.
I seem to recall the Fat Bastard volunteered to come to the US to stand trial if only money for his defense was released; and subsequently remember some $3 million being ordered released by a judge.
You remember entirely incorrectly. The DOJ did not release his funds. Certain funds were released in New Zealand and only for the NZ side of the case. His offer involved his US defense. In fact, the order releasing the funds specifically said he could not pay his US lawyers with it.
I sure hope he doesn’t play cards wirh other inmates when he does get to the States. He’s not much on bluffing.
What bluff? You made a false statement.
Re: Re:
The Department of Justice has turned an unlikable shit into an anti-Hollywood hero.
Think on that for a minute.
Re: Re:
11 comments on this thread, most of them the usual lies and impotent attacks from the local trolls and people telling them how they’re wrong. Don’t you guys get tired of this?
Re: Re: Re:
I’ve been telling people to stop responding to trolls for some time, to no avail. I guess they never tire of this game of whack-a-mole.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey, Hollywood enjoys a good game of whack-a-mole, why shouldn’t we?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Two words: Collateral Damage
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Whac-a-mole with mallets: Good.
Whac-a-mole with 10 kiloton nukes: Not so good.
I wonder if the decision had anything to do with them trying to save face after being caught spying not only on Dotcom but other citizens in violation of the law.
If your breaking more laws than the people your pursing, doesn’t that make you the bad guys?
Re: Re:
If you’re involved in law enforcement or the judicial system, breaking any laws at all makes you a bad guy.
Re: Re: Re:
Oh I thought it just got you a job at DOJ.
It’s a regular occurrence, more often than not providing humor. The exact opposite of what they are attempting to do. It’s very obvious that these trolls aren’t here just on their behalf.
They very rarely actually have anything worth while to talk of. Never any real facts pertaining the the topic at hand. Rarely read the articles, beyond the headline, nor the comments other than to pick a spot to come in on.
They are however getting more numerous, meaning that Mike is actually making headway and it worries the vested interests into paying for more inadequate trolls to divert the topic discussion.
Turn unlikable men into martyrs
Re: Turn unlikable men into martyrs
Dammit, I wanted to add that this is what the US do best.
Dotcom is not a very likable man but by going after him the way US Justice did, they have made him an anti copyright/anti Hollywood folk hero.
Before the Megaupload take down, not many people would have known who he was; now, you would find it difficult to find anyone who doesn’t know who he is. US Justice backed up by Hollywood did this. They also turned public opinion in his favour with the aggressive and, it seems, illegal way they treated him.
They do the same with suspected terrorists and yet they never learn.
Re: Re: Turn unlikable men into martyrs
“Before the Megaupload take down, not many people would have known who he was;”
Only too true. I had been using Megaupload for a couple of years before the fiasco of his arrest, with paid accounts. However, I hadn’t heard of Kim Dotcom. I didn’t know or care who ran the company. Now I do.
Too bad for Him
What doesn’t make sense here is that, even if Kim does win, he just becomes a prisoner of New Zealand. The arrest warrant from the US will still stand, and as soon as he sets foot anywhere with an extradition treaty with the US, he will get bagged, gagged, and tagged with a one way ticket to the US.
Moreover, all of this weaseling in NZ can’t help Kim when it comes to facing the US courts. Clearly, he wants to do everything under his power to try to avoid having to face the courts in the US. That would suggest that he feels like he would lose there big time, and that it might cost him years of his life and possibly all the money he has made on the backs of others.
Re: Too bad for Him
Yeah, trapped in New Zealand. What a hell hole /s
“Clearly, he wants to do everything under his power to try to avoid having to face the courts in the US”
He’s trying to avoid a kangaroo court in a country that’s already shown a willingness to break laws and procedures in order to get him, ignored any right to due process before shutting down his business and refuse to allow his defense access to the evidence they’d need to clear him? Of course he is, why would he think he’d get a fair trial?
Re: Too bad for Him
Fighting tooth and nail to avoid being ‘tried’ in the US isn’t a sign of guilt, that’s a sign of sanity.
Through this entire mess the USG has shown over and over that it was and is willing to bend, break or create any law it needs to to railroad him to a guilty verdict, and only a great fool would walk into that situation willingly.
For just a few of the many examples, try reading some of the following articles:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120705/01494319582/fbi-continues-to-insist-theres-no-reason-kim-dotcom-to-be-able-to-see-evidence-against-him.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120710/17055819652/kim-dotcom-offers-to-come-to-us-if-doj-releases-funds-legal-defense.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120815/23472720067/new-zealand-high-court-fbi-must-release-its-evidence-against-kim-dotcom.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130114/20002521676/doj-responds-to-megauploads-accusations-misleading-court-misleading-court.shtml
Re: Re: Too bad for Him
You want me to read the local opinion to become somehow indoctrinated? Self justify much?
Re: Re: Re: Could'a swore I already covered this...
Anyway, in those articles there are these funny little things called ‘links’, they generally take the form of blue words, slightly more bolded than the surrounding text, and you can use those to go to the pages/articles that the TD ones are based upon, if you have a strong objection to reading the TD writeups on them.
Re: Too bad for Him
Re: Too bad for Him
Why would anyone set foot in a country who asked another country to illegally spy and SWAT team his house? Any person with a brain or no masochistic tendencies would be once bitten, twice shy, you nimrod.
By the way – how much time have you spent your life in New Zealand?
Re: Too bad for Him
…as soon as he sets foot anywhere with an extradition treaty with the US, he will get bagged, gagged, and tagged with a one way ticket to the US.
Anywhere with an extradition treaty with the US, just like NZ. What makes you think things would happen any differently in another country. The US’s case isn’t going to suddenly change from laughably weak to extradition-worthy overnight.
Re: Too bad for Him
Would you say the same of the Jew’s who wanted to avoid the German authorities? Power of might does not make right.
Yeah, I went there….
Re: Re: Too bad for Him
Not bad, it only took 6 comments for someone to bring out the Nazi card. Your Republican party membership is in the mail!
Re: Re: Re: Too bad for Him
He may have tripped Godwin’s law, but it’s an apt usage.
makes no difference what you think of Dotcom, he should be allowed to know what he is charged with and what evidence there is against him. he is entitled to a lawyer and entitled to put up a defense. no one else here would want to be in the position of being accused of something, then told you are not going to court, you are not being allowed a lawyer, you are not allowed to say anything, you are not allowed to defend yourself, you are just going to jail. how can anyone here actually believe that it is perfectly ok to send someone to jail just because he is accused of doing something that someone doesn’t like? it’s even worse when the something he is accused of is sharing or allowing the sharing of files of data. he didn’t steal the plans for a new bomb. he didn’t start a world war. he didn’t melt the Ice Caps. he ran a web site that uses shared data files of, among other things, music and movies. regardless also of whether anyone thinks that is right or wrong, how can anyone, for one second, think that doing so should mean that the world’s laws should be rewritten to such an extent that it is classed as the most heinous crime imaginable and deserves such harsh punishments, as to make the legal system a total mockery??
Re: Re:
“makes no difference what you think of Dotcom, he should be allowed to know what he is charged with and what evidence there is against him.”
Amen. There is a case here in Northern Ireland at the moment where a man is being held without charge and without being told why he is being held. There is a public campaign under way to either have him released or to have charges brought against him so that he can have his day on court. The Secretary of State to NI is resisting so the case is about to go to the ECHR but he should not have to do that. This is internment, plain and simple. We had it in the 70s, it did not work then and it will not work now.
It is not just the US who has no regard for justice, the UK also has no regard for justice.
Re: Re: Re:
to #25
you are so right there! and the main reason for that is the fear that governments have about the people finding ut exactly what the fuckers are up to, how they are lining their own pockets at the expense of those they are supposed to represent and how they are screwing the people. i am of the opinion still that the reason the governments are letting the entertainment industries do what they want, in fact aid them do what they want is because while they are getting more and more surveillance laws brought it, that benefit the governments as well, it’s the industries that are taking all the flack!!
Re: Re: Re:
There is a public campaign under way to either have him released or to have charges brought against him so that he can have his day on court.
How hard is this to explain? There are charges in the US. Kim Dotcom is not behind held in jail, he is out on bond. What is pending in New Zealand is extradition to the US, not a specific criminal case under NZ law.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You should really read the comments you’re replying to. The man Zakida Paul was referring to was a man in NORTHERN IRELAND, NOT Kim Dotcom.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Trolls don’t usually read. Stupidity and ignorance are more acceptable if they’re willful.
…Actually, no it isn’t, but some people gotta dream.
Re: Re:
Does anyone else remember when “Sharing mean’t caring”? Fucking Republican (and the odd democrat) assholes.
Re: Re: Re:
Remember it? That’s how I was raised. Do the politicians and entertainment industry not realise how difficult it is to break the habits you developed so early in your life?
Re: Re: Re:
No, screw entitled assholes. That’s the long and short of it.
Re: Re:
makes no difference what you think of Dotcom, he should be allowed to know what he is charged with and what evidence there is against him. he is entitled to a lawyer and entitled to put up a defense.
You are correct, and he gets all of that IN THE USA. Extradition doesn’t mean try the case in New Zealand, which is what the original biased judge was trying to do. Rather, it requires a very light proof that there are charges and a basic case against him. He does not get to try the evidence in NZ, call witnesses, and be judges in a NZ court.
Remember, extradition doesn’t equate to guilt.
Re: Re: Re:
Tell that to all the people in Gitmo.
Re: Re: Re:
Umm, no, it requires the US to show that they even have a case against him, and in particular one dealing with a crime big enough to extradite him over, and as their ‘evidence’ to date has been composed pretty much entirely of ‘Trust us, we totally have a case, we just won’t provide any evidence of it’, NZ is completely justified in not just handing him over, especially as the USG conduct so far suggest he would get anything but a fair trial if tried in the US.
Re: Re: Re:
But it could equate to a guilty verdict (regardless of actual guilt) when you’re being extradited to a nation where a fair and just trial is impossible. Such as the US, if you’re Dotcom.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you think he isn’t going to get a fair trial, I think we need to all hang it up. The US justice system has more outs and more appeal levels than almost any court system on the planet, and is generally stocked with decent judges. Further, unless something really significant is going on, cases are open, recorded, and sometimes even broadcast live.
If Kim can’t get some semblance of a fair trial, then society as a whole is done. It’s sad that your entire justification for hoping a criminal can hide in another country is because you think your own legal system is so broken that letting walk is better.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
as more outs and more appeal levels than almost any court system on the planet
Interestingly the court systems where There are better and more appeal levels and work more with procedural fairness (what the US Systems DOES NOT HAVE) are the New Zealand and Australian ones… Based off the English system… Canada isn’t far behind those two either.. the UK sadly has become more US like in its judicial processes.
Kim would NEVER have a fair trial in the US court systems, and the notion of a fair trial nowadays with anything to do with high profile criminal or civil cases in the US is ONLY when it suits the USG’s purposes. Your (the US’s) societal system is crumbling already, you’re just too blinkered and close to understand what you have lost over the last 30yrs
Re: Re: Re:
Remember, extradition doesn’t equate to guilt.
Correct, his guilt has already retrospectively been decided beforehand by your Grand Jury (called a Star Chamber everywhere else). The extradition is just to allow the GJ process to get to do what it does best, convict everyone and their ham sandwich based on third party unreliable unauthentic hearsay and rhetoric
Tbh, I haven’t really seen any stories of more traffic on the Mega site in terms of traffic just Dotcom’s usual legal woes. All bark, no bite
You’d think some of our pro-hollywood commentors were “in” on the DoJ raid the way they take offense to any mention of the on-going fiasco that was created.
I thought greedy people only got miffed when they lost money or don’t get what they paid for… oh, wait…. nevermind. Derp!