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.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 10:45am

    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...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Brian Richard Allen (profile), 23 May 2016 @ 1:16pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Pauli, 14 Sep 2016 @ 4:56am

      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??????

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 14 Sep 2016 @ 6:19am

        "Lies will never owe up to face justice"

        You expect a court of justice can be found in the US because why?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Brian Richard Allen, 28 Sep 2016 @ 7:49pm

        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!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        glippi, 3 Apr 2017 @ 3:50am

        Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'

        And the most retarded comment goes too @Pauli, congrats for being a complete fucking idiot!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Uknow, 19 May 2017 @ 6:05am

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        I'm Just Me, 21 May 2017 @ 10:56pm

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Brian Richard Allen, 22 May 2017 @ 12:38am

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Adam, 22 May 2017 @ 4:35am

        Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'

        You have obviously never been through the US court systems. It's dirty and no one tells the truth. They will tell any lie, manufacture any evidence to screw this guy over. FACT.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Daniel, 22 May 2017 @ 5:52am

        Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'

        How very naive of you to think that honesty will prevail in a Federal Court in the US.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Joel Bama Teague, 22 May 2017 @ 11:13am

        Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'

        Innocent people everyday go to prison for a crime that they did not commit. These are facts. You are not innocent until proven guilty in the United States anymore, you are guilty, and you have to prove that you are innocent. That's just the way it works now.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        catherine OSullivan, 22 May 2017 @ 7:57pm

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Brian Richard Allen (profile), 22 May 2017 @ 8:57pm

          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

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 10:48am

    Greater of two evils.

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

    If the US is trying to be the shining light and bastion of justice, they're doing exactly the opposite of what they should.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 10:55am

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        jupiterkansas (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 10:57am

        Re: Re: Greater of two evils.

        Considering what the U.S. has already done in New Zealand, the idea that New Zealand will offer justice makes me laugh. They'll hand him right over and let the U.S. rake him over the coals while Chris Dodd sends thank you presents to the DOJ.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Padpaw (profile), 28 Mar 2015 @ 12:53am

      Re: Greater of two evils.

      I don't think the people running the USA care about actually being good when they can be evil and just look good to millions of stupid people that want to trust their government is looking out for their best interests

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Brian Richard Allen (profile), 23 May 2016 @ 1:29pm

      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

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Brian Richard Allen (profile), 22 May 2017 @ 7:48pm

        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)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Budward Smithe, 26 May 2017 @ 8:48am

        Re: Re: Greater of two evils.

        You sure know a lot of big words! But, No Common Sense! Sad!?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Smart Deplorable, 6 Nov 2016 @ 10:13am

      Re: Greater of two evils.

      Under this logic, the US justice department could do the same to all of the Clinton's assets then, seeing as how by their own admission they left the White House broke and are now worth over 200 millions doillars.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 10:52am

    "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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 10:58am

      Re:

      /s?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 11:03am

        Re: Re:

        Absolutely not. Those who rely on sites like this to present an unbiased and objective presentation of this matter are wasting their time.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 11:05am

          Re: Re: Re:

          As opposed to the *AA's and the DOJ, who are all just super unbiased, right? /s

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Baron von Robber, 27 Mar 2015 @ 11:37am

          Re: Re: Re:

          You're a perfect example of Poe's Law

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 3:51pm

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      jupiterkansas (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 11:00am

      Re:

      The high court of wolves said, "Of course the sheep can have justice. All it has to do is walk into our lair. If the sheep won't do that voluntarily, then obviously the sheep has done something wrong."

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 11:03am

      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?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 11:06am

        Re: Re:

        The DOJ has not destroyed evidence, but let's not let that get in the way of a site intent upon creating a work of fan fiction literally gushing over everything associated with KDC.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 11:14am

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 12:07pm

            Re: Re: Re: 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

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 5:43pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "AC sees justice as punishing the guilty."

              Actually, it seems more like he sees justice as punishing the accused.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              John Fenderson (profile), 30 Mar 2015 @ 8:15am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Wow, this is brilliantly said. I could never understand why there were people who were OK with damage to innocent others in order to punish the guilty, but this makes perfect sense to me. Thanks, Chronos.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Uriel-238 (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 12:13pm

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          RD, 27 Mar 2015 @ 12:59pm

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 1:06pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Wow...out of curiosity, when did you become a kool-aid addict?

            You really should learn to read more than just this site's representations.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Gwiz (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 1:22pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 2:05pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

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

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  RD, 27 Mar 2015 @ 2:09pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 2:12pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Citation to a source, please.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 3:37pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Here you go

                      Anonymous Coward, Mar 27th, 2015 @ 2:30pm

                      You even admit it yourself.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 3:37pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        I'm sorry, I hold the govt responsible for the destruction of that evidence, and rightfully so.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      tqk (profile), 30 Mar 2015 @ 2:42pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      "Citation to a source, please.

                      ... Equals "can't use a search engine." I hope your mother's proud. I prefer ixquick.com, but that may be too technical for you to handle, sorry. Ask your mom.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2015 @ 3:43pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        The individual stated the USG had admitted to deleting evidence. The statement is contradicted by every document that has been filed with the federal district court, so it does seem appropriate to ask the person for a citation to his source.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  RD, 27 Mar 2015 @ 2:16pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 2:30pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 3:35pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Gwiz (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 2:25pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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/

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 11:16am

      Re:

      Let me know when you're ready to travel across the world to defend yourself after all your assets have been taken from you.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 11:31am

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        David, 27 Mar 2015 @ 1:33pm

        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!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        PRMan, 27 Mar 2015 @ 1:36pm

        Re: Re:

        And legal fees should be exempt from all seizures in all cases. It's a travesty of justice not to allow someone to defend themselves to their best ability.

        In fact, it's unconstitutional.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 3:57pm

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        michele, 11 Feb 2017 @ 11:08am

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Xuuths, 27 Mar 2015 @ 12:23pm

      Re:

      Your name is apt.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      RD, 27 Mar 2015 @ 1:02pm

      Re:

      "KDC has had numerous opportunities to appear before the federal court in Alexandria, VA and present a defense. "

      Hey fucktard. Yeah, you. His passport was taken away from him as a condition of his bail. HE CAN'T LEAVE THE COUNTRY. So, tell us how he has "missed opportunities"?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 1:12pm

        Re: Re:

        Uh...agree to extradition to the U.S.? Surely even you can understand that NZ courts would not stand in the way of him doing so.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          JP Jones (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 3:19pm

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 3:46pm

          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-h imself/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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 1:31pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Rekrul, 27 Mar 2015 @ 4:13pm

      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?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 4:30pm

      Re:

      Except for the fact that Dotcom's money is going directly into the private bank accounts of various politicians and high-up law enforcement officers you mean?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2015 @ 10:39am

      Re:

      So he's supposed to fly to a country he's never been too, because he allegedly broke their laws, from his computer in his home country? How is that at all reasonable?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2015 @ 4:03pm

      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!!)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      tqk (profile), 30 Mar 2015 @ 2:28pm

      Re:

      Didn't read the article, eh? Try harder.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Apr 2015 @ 1:59pm

      Re:

      Except he's not a US resident. He's never even set foot in the country.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Brian Richard Allen (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 1:06pm

      Re: KDC

      .... KDC has had numerous opportunities to appear before the federal court in Alexandria, VA and present a defense ....

      Spoken like a kidnapper/ransom-seeker with a gun in the victim's pubescent daughter's ear.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Nov 2015 @ 3:14pm

      Re:

      'Telling' is not a legal verdict, so why even bring it up in this context? I have never heard a judge rule that they 'find the defendant suspicious.'

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anon, 1 Dec 2015 @ 3:18am

      Re:

      Why would anyone appear or send his representation to a US court? The US doesnt have ANY jurisdiction outside of the US. GTFO with that crazy "we own the world" attitude. You dont.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      LordEffington, 22 Dec 2015 @ 9:47pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Ed Foster, 22 Dec 2015 @ 9:57pm

      Re: U.S. criminal government

      The U.S. government is corrupt and illegitimate. Any actions against it are morally correct.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      marcus (profile), 23 Dec 2015 @ 10:21am

      Re:

      With the way he has already been treated by the United States, do you really think he would voluntarily come to the United States to fight these charges? Most likely he won't get a fair trial.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Dominik, 23 Dec 2015 @ 8:26pm

      Re:

      You have to be joking.... The man has never even ever been in America.

      It's like having all your assets taken by the King of some Islamic country because you refuse to go to this Islamic country for a trial they have set up against you because you said something against the Koran online in your home in Texas.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2015 @ 11:21pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Dec 2015 @ 7:09pm

      Re:

      Why would he need to personally appear for a civil matter?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2016 @ 11:05pm

      Re:

      So if I randomly accuse you of child abuse, and you don't come half way across the world at your own expense to deny it, then you're guilty of it?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      lee, 24 Aug 2016 @ 9:41pm

      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

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      ksenia, 28 Aug 2016 @ 7:32am

      Re:

      Why? He is not US citizen, he has never been to US and he has no business in US. Why do you think he should come to Virginia???

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      mickey bellar, 23 Sep 2016 @ 1:47pm

      Re:

      You are the kind of people that make others not want to travel to this county. You accept blindly what you are told is true, you vote how the party tells you and to.

      You are the reason for the status quo. No disrespect but, you fuck you sir, fuck you very much.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Chris, 26 Oct 2016 @ 3:56pm

      Re:

      Since when does the US have the right to compel people from other countries to appear?

      Why isn't every manufacturer of hard drives, network components, ISP's, blu-ray burners.etc also charged with facilitating?

      He ran a online storage company. That believed in privacy.
      Shame USG, shame.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    John Adams, 27 Mar 2015 @ 10:59am

    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!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      marcus (profile), 23 Dec 2015 @ 10:27am

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 11:29am

    I think the magic hat trick has been keeping all this out of the press otherwise the average person would be terrified.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 11:32am

    Yeah, ....."legally"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      David, 26 Dec 2015 @ 1:21am

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Barnassey, 27 Mar 2015 @ 11:48am

    This should scare any company that deals with stuff the mpaa or the riaa doesnt like. Since its being used againist him its going to get used againist someone else.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    antidirt (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 11:56am

    The only thing funnier than Dotcom losing his stuff because he's too chicken to submit to the court's jurisdiction is Mike's predictable whining about it while still pretending like there's not tons of allegations of direct criminal infringement in the indictment. You can set your watch to it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 12:08pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        antidirt (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 12:16pm

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 12:38pm

          Re: Re: 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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            icon
            antidirt (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 3:58pm

            Re: Re: Re: 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?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 4:27pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                antidirt (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 4:46pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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!

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Shadow Dragon (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 4:51pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  I have a question for you.Do you hate Techdirt,because you're jealous of Mike? Tell the truth,Otherwise I'm gonna hound with this question every time you post here.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Pragmatic, 30 Mar 2015 @ 6:40am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    He hates anyone who contradicts his false notion that copyright is property. It's not, he knows that, but insists that it is.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2015 @ 7:24am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      No, he just questions the motives of those who deliberately misrepresent facts in order to promote a specific narrative, as well as challenges those who blindly accept such facts without any attempt to independently validate their accuracy and completeness.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2015 @ 9:29am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        And when people do exactly the same to him he then attacks those and Mike and the person has never once shown Mike or others to be wrong. Touchet!

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2015 @ 9:43am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  JMT (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 9:00pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2015 @ 5:44am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    antidirt (profile), 28 Mar 2015 @ 9:18am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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?

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2015 @ 5:38am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        antidirt (profile), 29 Mar 2015 @ 8:42am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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%20Supersedin g%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.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2015 @ 4:52pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 5:51pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Hey antidirt, I hear ISIS might like to put you on trial. When are you hopping a plane and beating a path to their door?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              tqk (profile), 30 Mar 2015 @ 3:12pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I just spent about five minutes trying to figure out which of these idiots first said, "The government here is playing by the book." Crap. Now that I know it's you, I know I'm wasting my time.

              TD, Slashdot (may it rest in peace) had "Goto Parent" buttons which were quite useful. Just a suggestion.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 12:57pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          He's still a free man.

          Both you and the DOJ can stick that point straight up your asses.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Gwiz (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 1:00pm

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 1:52pm

            Re: Re: Re: 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.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            icon
            antidirt (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 4:09pm

            Re: Re: Re: 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.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Gwiz (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 4:20pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                icon
                antidirt (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 4:36pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Gwiz (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 5:02pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    antidirt (profile), 28 Mar 2015 @ 9:09am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2015 @ 11:05pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      "You're allowed to make any move except moves that I declare illegal on the basis that they make me look bad. I win! Neener neener neener!"

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  jupiterkansas (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 5:08pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 4:24pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              The case is repeatedly questioned because of the very unprofessional and biased way the USG has pursued it.

              An a shaky indictment, an illegal raid, destruction of evidence and now stripping the accused of his assets before any trial.

              Anyone NOT questioning it is lacking some mental faculties.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          RD, 27 Mar 2015 @ 1:05pm

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 1:25pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yes, kudos to the US DOJ for succeeding in making US law apply in New Zealand.

          Wonder if they've got a plan when other countries do the same thing....gloat away, fucktard.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 1:32pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Apparently you are unfamiliar with international treaties, even at a conceptual level.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              jupiterkansas (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 5:09pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              oh, right, those things written in private by the corporations that stand to benefit the most from them.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                tqk (profile), 30 Mar 2015 @ 3:30pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.]

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 1:47pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          What's that old saying about how sufficiently advanced parody is indistinguishable from sincerity? Because I'm starting to think this guy is just a sufficiently advanced parody of a damn kool-aid factory.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2015 @ 2:46am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            It's possible antidirt is simply conducting a parody but I think it's more the case that he's morally bankrupt.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          JMT (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 9:08pm

          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).

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2015 @ 2:44am

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 12:19pm

      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?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        antidirt (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 3:54pm

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Rikuo, 28 Mar 2015 @ 1:09am

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 12:00pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      icon
      antidirt (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 12:05pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 12:14pm

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          antidirt (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 4:16pm

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2015 @ 2:38am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            So if some country has servers that host your post and the government in said country declares your post illegal and in violation of their laws would you be willing to stand trial in said country?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2015 @ 8:40pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 12:53pm

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          icon
          antidirt (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 4:19pm

          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!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2015 @ 2:39am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You are such a low life scumbag it's amazing people like you can even sleep at night. Are you really that morally bankrupt as to put your personal interests ahead of justice? You should really take a hard look at yourself in the mirror.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Shadow Dragon (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 1:44pm

        Re: Re:

        Typical troll.You only hate this site because you're jealous of Mike,am I right? You must have some inferiority complex. Do love to be hated?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 12:45pm

      Re:

      No no, I'm sure they'd be glad to help him get a new one... once he's in the US... eventually...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 12:02pm

    A way to fix this and help fix another problem while we're at it is to find a way to file a investor state dispute settlement.

    It's a poison pill, but I'm always in favor of using weapons against their creators.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 12:05pm

    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..

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      arouk (profile), 10 Nov 2015 @ 5:05am

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 12:19pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 12:24pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 12:31pm

      Re:

      Don't you find it somewhat unusual that KDC alleges he has blown through several million dollars fighting extradition within NZ, while simultaneously claiming the lack of funds to cover legal proceedings in the US?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 12:39pm

        Re: Re:

        For Kim pay a US lawyer, means getting money into the US, without it being seized by the US government when it arrives in the US.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 12:25pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 28 Mar 2015 @ 12:09pm

      Welcome to the America is worse than Nazi Germany club.

      I came to that conclusion around the time of Ferguson when, to my horror, I learned that the behaviors of loose cannon law-enforcement agents common practice in the precincts.

      Germany 1939 was run by ideologists. USA 2015 is run by the mob.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      arouk (profile), 10 Nov 2015 @ 5:09am

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      marcus (profile), 23 Dec 2015 @ 10:40am

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 1:03pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 1:11pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 1:23pm

        Re: Re:

        By your rationale the person behind 9/11 is being held here illegally because everything he did was from the comfort of a foreign country.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2015 @ 8:45am

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2015 @ 10:31am

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Gwiz (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 1:12pm

      Re:

      That shit happens all the time and no one cares because he selling dope not engaging in infringement.

      I care.

      Any asset forfeiture not tied to a criminal conviction is a travesty of justice as far as I'm concerned and that includes drug dealers.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 1:23pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 28 Mar 2015 @ 12:18pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 1:25pm

    Thou shalt not steal, the government doesn't like the competition.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 1:57pm

    Fall on your own sword or fall on ours.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rekrul, 27 Mar 2015 @ 4:15pm

    Every single person involved in this illegal operation should be tossed in jail for violating the US constitution.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 8:05pm

    So when are all the artists that Dotcom supposedly stole from going to receive their cut of the money?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 11:46pm

      Re:

      Trying for funniest comment of the week are we? They'll never see a cent, unless the labels decided to take on any legal fees they incur to what the bands 'owe', in which case they'll see it on their bill.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2015 @ 6:40am

      Re:

      The only people who will receive money from the seized assets once they have been given to the US will be first the lawyers and then second the people who sit on the boards of the 'AAs who will be awarded super bonuses. As for the starving artists they will receive nothing!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 8:43pm

    Mike, you did a great job explaining how the US Gov, DOJ specifically, stole Mr. Dotcom's property by twisting their own laws to suit their motives. For such a complex topic, your explanation is concise, brief, and to the point.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Mar 2015 @ 6:59am

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Richard, 28 Mar 2015 @ 8:42am

    Thank You For Recognizing The Insanity

    I keep coming across articles about Dotcom that are either blatant hit pieces or failures when it come to emphasizing the degree of injustice/insanity in what the U.S. gov has been able to do to Dotcom.
    Thank you for these breaths of fresh air you have written

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Sheogorath (profile), 28 Mar 2015 @ 4:47pm

    How The US Government Legally Stole Millions From Kim Dotcom
    Personally, I wouldn't have even dignified that headline with the 'legally'. I mean, just because you're following the letter of the law, it doesn't always make what you're doing right.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anon, 29 Mar 2015 @ 12:37pm

    Anon

    Edward Snowden is a fugitive, he ran away from USA and got refuge in Russia.
    Kim Dotcom is a fugitive, he hasn't moved and still live at home.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2015 @ 1:48pm

      Re: Anon

      As far as the DOJ is concerned, if someone does not turn up in court and plead guilty when they tell them to, they are a fugitive.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    HG, 29 Mar 2015 @ 5:28pm

    kimdotcum

    Kimdotcum would have been smarter to have taken all his money out of banks and hidden it in vaults all over the world . But he didn't ....

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Jess, 30 Mar 2015 @ 10:35am

    US presence

    I run a company in Canada and I sell some stuff to US.
    Turns out that US has state laws that will by default consider you having "presence in the US" if you sell above a certain limit.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    tqk (profile), 30 Mar 2015 @ 2:23pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2015 @ 6:50am

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Ton, 17 Apr 2015 @ 7:51pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      tqk (profile), 17 Apr 2015 @ 8:10pm

      Re:

      If you had a shred of honesty, you'd agree that very few people like KDC. The vast majority I've seen are livid at what their own gov't is doing to him, and how they're doing it. They're not defending KDC. They just want their gov't back from Hollywood which has bought their elected reps.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      marcus (profile), 23 Dec 2015 @ 10:58am

      Re:

      Then Microsoft would have their assets seized. Under copyright law you can only make one copy of music. A lot of people who are using Windows 10 have no idea that Microsoft is storing their files on the cloud and by doing so Microsoft is committing copyright infringement by making an unauthorized copy of copyrighted files.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 17 Apr 2015 @ 8:34pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    George Garard, 19 May 2015 @ 9:04pm

    Extradition.

    How can a person be extradited to a country (US) where they have never lived?

    Cheers.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Jimjams, 30 Jul 2015 @ 7:04pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    john wayne, 14 Sep 2015 @ 2:50pm

    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!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      marcus (profile), 23 Dec 2015 @ 11:03am

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Zob, 18 Sep 2015 @ 2:22am

    The Obvious

    The US is no longer what she once was; don't expect a win based on legality or morality.. at best you'll find perpetual conflict with the system here and what you recompense will mostly get used to pay for the battle.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Brian Richard Allen, 24 Sep 2015 @ 1:01pm

    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

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    h, 28 Oct 2015 @ 8:24am

    confiscation

    What most peeps don't realise is that the judges and any agency involved get to divvy up the goodies in such cases.In the UK we even have cops framing rich defendants to try to get their hands on houses etc. This law is unspeakable and encourages state ops to be actively employed in ripping people off.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Brian Richard Allen (profile), 10 Nov 2015 @ 11:40am

    #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

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Duke, 12 Dec 2015 @ 10:47am

    NONSENSE

    Power to the people. The people of the U.S. don't want this- the powerful greedy government is doing the work of some rich jealous companies I imagine. When the government calls itself protecting the people without the request of the majority that's is a serious problem. Freedom was lost long ago here...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2015 @ 10:12pm

    Black is violent. How many(!) times have you been attacked by one? countless.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2015 @ 11:23pm

    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

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Brian Richard Allen, 24 Dec 2015 @ 4:59am

      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

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Mr Brightside (profile), 6 Jan 2016 @ 4:04pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2016 @ 4:10am

    -they are broke, they need money
    -via asset forfeiture they are stealing MORE than ALL THE OTHER GANGS TOGETHER within the US.
    -Hollywood does not like the internet
    -they think the UNIVERSE is within their jurisdiction

    do your math
    it is only a logical consequence

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Alberto, 23 May 2016 @ 10:58am

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    US Government, 5 Aug 2016 @ 8:09am

    Copying is not theft! (like they actually copied his money)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    quynh, 7 Aug 2016 @ 2:10am

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    iddaa (profile), 30 Aug 2016 @ 7:05am

    USA

    what a country. It didn't surprise me

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Sep 2016 @ 6:03am

    ..shame US Law no rights...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Victor, 5 Oct 2016 @ 12:25pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Bruce Bates, 28 Oct 2016 @ 1:29pm

      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?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Brian Richard Allen (profile), 5 Oct 2016 @ 6:11pm

    The New Zealand "government's"conduct in this matter is appalling. But then - apart from that its nice to look at - so is everything else about New Zealand.

    Brian Richard Allen

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2016 @ 4:26pm

    Liam O'Grady
    United States District Court Eastern District of Virginia
    Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse
    401 Courthouse Square
    Alexandria, VA 22314

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2016 @ 4:28pm

    This, kids, is theft, because Kim Dotcom was left with no money.

    Copying, on the other hand, would leave Dotcom with money.

    Copying is not theft.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Bruce Bates, 28 Oct 2016 @ 1:20pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Fuck logic, 28 Oct 2016 @ 2:31pm

    If the US Gov. stole someone, it's legal.

    If someone copies a digital file, it's theft.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Brian Richard Allen, 6 Nov 2016 @ 11:24pm

    .... 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Macination, 19 Jan 2017 @ 5:05pm

    If the US Gov. stole someone, it's legal.

    If someone copies a digital file, it's theft.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Brian Richard Allen (profile), 11 Feb 2017 @ 12:08pm

    America's Feral Government Legally Stole Millions From Kim Dotcom

    Nope. America's feral government CRIMINALLY stole Millions from Kim Dotcom.

    "Legalizing" a criminal action does not make it moral.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    onehipdog, 8 Mar 2017 @ 3:39am

    why wont he come to america

    Why won't he come to America?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Jan Sarha, 8 Mar 2017 @ 4:46pm

      Re: why wont he come to america

      Becuse he just doesn't want to spend rest of his life in Isolation 4'x 5.5'cell. USA has rubber stamp of courts.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 8 Mar 2017 @ 5:04pm

        No justice in the US.

        Yes. The US legal system is not a justice system by any stretch, and the DoJ has already made it plain that they intend to exploit any advantage they have to destroy Dotcom.

        Dotcom coming to the US would be paramount to getting a reserved cell in Camp Delta with always on bright lights and super-loud music.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Ren, 19 Mar 2017 @ 6:11pm

    weird

    So, what strikes me is that the US can grab his assets from another country (how's that even possible) yet when DotCom is in one of those countries himself he is considered a fugitive... That kind of contradicts each other. Makes no sense at all.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Kimberly Porter, 27 May 2017 @ 6:14am

    It is an abuse of power!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Brian Richard Allen, 27 May 2017 @ 7:31am

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Caution: Copyright
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

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