Right now, I think many of our police problems are aggravated by a shortage of major crime. Crime is low compared to the seventies and eighties, but they're even more armed, and guns and tasers are being drawn in jaywalking and neighbor-complaint incidents.
I assume there is evidence of actual money laundering on Dotcom's behalf?
I don't remember it from the charges that were publicized on or just after the day of the SOPA blackout, when ICE raided his house.
But I do remember a shotgun of charges including old has-beens like conspiracy which are only used when the DoJ wants to disappear you but has no real justification.
So, considering the DoJ's tact throughout the whole case, I'm going to be a bit skeptical that there's legitimacy behind any of them.
But feel free to point to sources that you think vindicate your story.
In the meantime, repeating over and over that Dotcom is a criminal before he's even convicted doesn't make him one. And rather than convincing us more that he may be, it suggests that you don't have anything better by which to offer, except that you hate him personally and hope he loses his case.
forfeiture has been given a pass by POTUS already.
Argument to authority?
POTUS has already given a pass to mass surveillance and extrajudicial detention and interrogation. Do you think those are valid as well?
Kim has a past history of hiding out in foreign countries to avoid prosecution
Kim is not a US citizen. He's never been to the US. To him the US is a foreign country. Applying terms like extradition and fugitive to Dotcom is a far reach.
The US's proper recourse would be to appeal to the New Zealand courts, or to an international tribunal, if they truly believed Dotcom committed a crime.
If they believed that Megaupload was engaging in unethical business practices, since it's a corporation, it's subject to international corporate law, and there are courts for that too. But in that case, Dotcom isn't automatically guilty by association.
No, this is whole affair is maneuver by someone in the US to specifically attack and ruin Dotcom.
Third, the concept of asset forfeiture isn't unique to this case. Kim got rich off of the crimes he is charged with.
The crimes he's charged with are pretty vague and dubious.
The use of asset forfeiture in the case of Dotcom actually demonstrates its questionable validity when applied to incidents involving more serious crimes such as trafficking.
In all cases of asset forfeiture, we're talking a grotesque presumption of guilt prior to conviction which is contrary to a fundamental principal in US justice.
The Dotcom affair is driven by is people in the US DoJ holding a grudge against Kim Dotcom and seeking to destroy him. This is not justice by any sense of the word, and the incident has already done damage to the world economy by shaking confidence in the United States as a nation of law, plus the entire market of cloud computing. Your cloud data is now subject not just to natural disasters, but the whims of VIPs with in government agencies.
Do business in or with the United States, and the Department of Justice may choose to behave as a mob and take your assets by force without any recourse or consequence. Furthermore when Megaupload data was seized the DoJ failed to consider the legitimate clients who used the service as a cyberlocker.
These are the behaviors of an organized criminal syndicate or a tyrannical dictatorship, not a state of law and commerce.
You know what the asset forfeiture program depends on?
Presumption of guilt.
You know why we have more innocent people in jail than guilty (or, for that matter more of our population in jail than any other nation)?
Presumption of guilt.
Our Justice system has already lost all credibility as being a valid source for fair arbitration. Its only authority is that of force (which itself believes, as is evidenced by the raid of the Dotcom home, when they could have knocked or arrested him during routine commute).
The whole Dotcom affair is not about justice. It's about a syndicate employing a mercenary force to remove a competing / disrupting business.
And with every step, the DoJ and US courts lose more of their moral credibility.
These are not acts of due process but attacks by the Department of Justice against a man. And they're attacks by a man (or woman) who happens to be within the system in a position where he can call on the department's resources.
By attacking him unjustly, they've turned Dotcom into an icon against such abuse of power. They've turned him into an icon against tyranny. Thus an icon of the people.
What he did to supposedly draw such fire has become irrelevant.