US Continues To Try To Block Megaupload From Using Its Lawyers, Pretends It Has Jurisdiction Over The World
from the not-quite-how-it-works dept
Following some filings by Megaupload's lawyers in the US, the US Attorneys office has shot back, asking the court to deny all of the company's requests. And, it goes even further than that: seeking to deny Megaupload the ability to use the topnotch lawyers it hired. This part is not new. Back in April, it sought to block Megaupload from hiring Andrew Schapiro from Quinn Emanuel, arguing that there's a "conflict of interest" because the DOJ argues that YouTube is a "victim" of Megaupload and could be a witness -- and Schapiro has represented and continues to represent YouTube in the Viacom case. Quinn Emanuel has also done some work for Hollywood. The thing is, big law firms like Quin Emanuel have a pretty detailed process to check for conflicts of interest, and assuming that Quinn Emanuel and its clients are okay with things, then how is it the government's place to complain other than out of some sort of childish desire to deny Megaupload the best legal representation it can find. The more we view the DOJ's actions in this and related cases, the more it becomes clear that they have a tendency to act like a bunch of little playschool children in these sorts of legal fights.Separately, the government tries to reject the argument that Megaupload has made -- and which a
The US Attorneys also play some games with the filing itself, claiming that Megaupload cannot make such filings until the defendants appear in the court. In fact, they claim that by fighting extradition, Megauploads' execs count as "fugitives" from the law, and thus cannot file motions with the court. Of course, that's ridiculous. The whole point of filing these motions is to help show that the entire case is frivolous and that the extradition requests are excessive and unnecessary. For the US to respond to that by saying that such arguments can only be made after extradition is an argument that makes no sense. It's basically saying that they can only fight extradition after they've been extradited.
All in all, the arguments here are similar to the DOJ's arguments against letting Megaupload users get back their data. Basically, the DOJ was insanely over aggressive in shutting down Megaupload, creating a huge mess... Now, it's lashing out at anyone who seeks to fix a small piece of the mess, basically by saying that the mess has nothing to do with the DOJ's own actions.
Honestly, from the outside looking in, it sure looks like the DOJ is realizing just how weak its case is here, and is simply lashing out at anyone it can.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: andrew schapiro, doj, hollywood
Companies: megaupload, quinn emanuel, viacom, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/06/retired-judge-megaupload/
When even judges are calling them into question you know there is something wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US Policy Change
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US Policy Change
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Very similar to my take on it when I read this on TorrentFreak this morning.
I was thinking to myself - Is the DoJ really saying "Of course it's legal - we're the US-fuckin-Goverment for Christ's sake!!!"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This means that they would be OK with President Obama being charged with war crimes by Afghan rebels and extradition proceeding unimpeded by the DOJ ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
probably not.
(i may, of course, be misremembering, but that's the impression i have from a number of things i have read.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And you all thought the US just had to keep those troops there because of dozens of peace treaties they signed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The US has troops stationed in over 100 nations
As though the military bases are part of the strategy for keeping the greenback in circulation. Military money laundering...This attitude that the unipolar world is the U.S' playground is pretty well ensconced in foreign policy.
The DOJ acting in this manner is not really surprising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"outside looking it," should be "outside looking in," I do believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: errors
Further, the article reads that a "New Zealand judge has found compelling -- that for criminal proceeding to take place against a foreign company, that company needs to be served." I think that should say that a US Judge has found this point compelling. The link provided relates to the reaction of the US judge, not the NZ judge. I have not heard anywhere that the NZ judge made any comment on this point. Could be wrong though, do let me know if I am.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: errors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes... fixed. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay, I'm done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To do business with anyone in the united states, you must have an agent in the U.S.
Quinn Emanuel would have to get a signed waiver from basically every company it represents, including Disney and i assume the MPAA, that allows them to defend MU.
It's not fair that MU can hire multiple teams of lawyers to file motions in different courts at the same time. (I assume Hong Kong, New Zealand, and US courts)
and the best one, where they basically say "nuh-uh" to MU's complaint that they are fusing criminal and civil copyright law... in a footnote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As long as they get your fellow Jenny Craig dropout, it shouldn't matter too much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The DOJ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The DOJ
(i'm sure the reader can figure that out.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The DOJ
Next the DOJ Assholes will do this same thing to a US Citizen and right on US Land.
These guys want to fuck with Dotcom and after that they come for us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The backlash, if and when it comes, will be from the citizens of these nations toward the governments that have bent over for america and signed all these non reciprocal treaties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Megafuckups
And they don't want to lose, so they're cheating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just a precursor....
Next they'll be saying, "You can only fight your sentence of death after you have been executed."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That said, the Attorney General Eric Holder should be fired and disbarred for all of his actions while in office/power. He clearly doesn't care about the law or justice. Its obvious that he is just bending over backwards for his Hollywood butt-buddies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Naming Scheme
Here's how government naming schemes work:
Federal Reserve; neither "Federal" nor "Reserve"--not a part of government at all.
Ministry of Truth; does not tell the truth.
Department of Justice; does not deliver justice.
You see how it goes, right?
Among career politicians (et al), the only way you'll hear the truth from them is when the accidentally tell it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes. The Justice Department is a part of the *Executive* branch, and basically handles litigation for the federal government in front of the judicial branch (the courts).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You have been a bad boy.
A very very bad boy.
A bad boy you are.
Such a bad bad boy you are.
Bad boy, bad boy, a very very bad boy.
And then they whack you with a stick.
That in a very crude way sums up the DoJ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/sarcmarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is clear to anybody with a working brain that the Department of Justice's arguments make absolutely no sense and that they have clearly already broken at least several laws (referring to the fact they copied several of DotCom's personal hard drives and took the copies out of New Zealand, before the extradition process had been finished).
When the DoJ feels like they can act this brazen, make clearly bullshit arguments that no-one can believe...why bother? What's stopping them from saying "Ah fuck it, let's just shoot the tubby bastard and call it a day".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I actually looked into that and don't think that's as big of an issue. In that case, the government's argument actually does make sense. They weren't allowed to bring physical goods out of the country, but making some copies of data for others to see? That's fair.
If you believe that copyright isn't property then you shouldn't really have an issue with this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copying the evidence
Regarding the DOJ/FBI copying Dotcom's data, the FBI/DOJ should not be able to receive even copies of *irrelevant*, *personal* information about Kim Dotcom BEFORE the conclusion of the extradition hearing, if ever. The personal, irrelevant information about a NZ citizen should be protected against an intruding foreign power before the conclusion of the extradition hearing. Otherwise, the US could just bring charges against any NZ citizen and seize all their personal, irrelevant information without any protection for the NZ citizen by the NZ government. That is just wrong. That is what is going to sting the FBI/DOJ.
In this case, it is the information that needs to be protected, whether a copy or not.
Ken
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YouTube as a Witness ??
This argument confuses me. How exactly would YouTube be a victim? A victim of what? Someone converting a YouTube video and putting it on Mega? YouTube wouldn't be the rights holder anyways.
Seems like the DoJ is completely clueless about what YouTube does or they are just making shit up to prevent Dotcom from mounting a defense. Either way it doesn't reflect well on the DoJ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YouTube as a Witness ??
In the indictment there are reports that Kim told his staff to literally copy everything on YouTube and put it on MegaVideo. They basically tried to clone all of YouTube...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: YouTube as a Witness ??
If true, that does convolute the situation a bit. But I have to agree with you, law firms pay attention to covering their own asses, so they have probably examined this from every possible angle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typical Tactics
However, if you make too many ridiculous arguments, a judge will get angry at you and it could taint your whole case. So I say to the US attorneys, keep it up! Get the judge angry at you and he might toss the whole case!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is just ONE of the things this Government has done, and done badly, it seems voting is not working, so whats next?
Instead of talking about symptoms, can we start talking about cures?
It appears "Rome" is burning, but they have outlawed fire extinguishers..
(vote the blank)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
playschool children
Actually, the DOJ looks more like a criminal organization than an organization to fight criminals in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]