US Has Ignored New Zealand Court Order To Return Data It Seized From Megaupload

from the of-course dept

Tue, Jul 31st 2012 11:23am — Mike Masnick

There are a bunch of moving pieces in the various Megaupload legal proceedings, but if you recall, in the ruling in late June from New Zealand's High Court, it was made clear that the New Zealand government and the US FBI broke the law in sending data from Megaupload's hard drives overseas, and ordered them returned. Megaupload's lawyer, Ira Rothken is out reminding the world that the US has failed to comply with the order to return the data that was illegally taken, and has shown no signs of planning to comply. Apparently, the Justice Department, who is supposed to be enforcing the rule of law, doesn't believe such rule of law applies to its own activities.

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: data, doj, new zealand
Companies: megaupload

213 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 11:30am

wow. yet again. Isn't this already contempt of court?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 11:47am
  
  Re: ORly
  This brings up an interesting quandary... can the court be in contempt of itself?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 31 Jul 2012 @ 11:51am
    
    Re: Re: ORly
    According to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy it can be.
    
    And as we all know, "The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 11:30am

Apparently, the Justice Department, who is supposed to be enforcing the rule of law, doesn't believe such rule of law applies to its own activities.

"Foreign" laws don't count....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 11:37am
  
  Re:
  Yeah, we ain't listening to those commienazi bastard puppy rapists.
  
  USA USA USA
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 11:54am
    
    Re: Re:
    It is said that ancient Rome was in the same state of denial just before it crumbled.
    
    No brains, all balls. What could possibly go wrong?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 12:14pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Being all balls kinda sucks when you get kicked.....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 1:11pm
  
  Re:
  They do when it's a NZ case and the trial is happening over there. Maybe NZ can't force US to actually give back the data, but then the NZ judge should dismiss the whole case and deny extradition for Kim Dotcom. Let's see if US likes that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 4:05pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I've no idea what the scope for such action is, but I'd like to see the judge decide that the conduct of the US makes it entirely clear that a fair trial plays no part in their plans, and both refuse to extradite, and order the NZ government return any and all property to Mr Dotcom and the others.
    
    He probably should be compensated too.
    
    At this point, I'd really like NZ to withdraw from the extradition treaty it has with the US. The US government has gone rogue and is essentially lawless now, picking and choosing when to bother with the law, when to selectively dispense with or apply it, and when to violate or suspend it.
    
    When a government treats law like it's own little tool to be applied, upheld, twisted inside out, or abused and debased, at its own arbitary discretion, and on a "fear or favour" basis, that government is lawless.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 8:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      But all that doesn't matter much, because the US is clear that the can (a) hold the assets as long as they need, and (b) they can wait to serve Kim whenever he happens to land in the US or whatever.
      
      Whatever the judge in NZ says won't make the US criminal case go away. At best, Kim will be a fugitive for the rest of his life. Whenever he does to a given country, he could be arrested on an international warrant and held. So he can live in a few places, but his jet setting lifestyle would be over.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - G Thompson (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 10:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Whatever the judge in NZ says won't make the US criminal case go away. At best, Kim will be a fugitive for the rest of his life. Whenever he does to a given country, he could be arrested on an international warrant and held. So he can live in a few places, but his jet setting lifestyle would be over.
        
        What's interesting with that statement of yours is that since the High Court has stated it was an illegality for the US Justice dept to have the data and has stated it needs to be returned and set a date, it can now enable Kim Dotcom to charge the USJ with Detinue (sur tover) and maybe Replevin as pure civil torts (think conversion for US attorneys).
        
        As well as this the actual court in it's criminal jurisdiction can charge the USJ with Theft (s219 CA1961 NZ) which has a maximum penalty of not more than 7 years in gaol.
        
        Due to this the NZ courts can then enact a warrant for arrest (since they actually have an official admission that the goods have been taken by the USJ) for all persons who have knowledge and authority within the USJ on this matter. This means since it is over a 5yr max sentence that they can then initiate a Interpol warrant for detention and extradition to NZ so these persons within the USJ would face the same restriction upon there persons as Kim Dotcom would face as per your statement.
        
        Maybe if Kim asks whist not busy taking on Julian Assange's case the International Spanish jurist Baltasar Garz�n (who is a thorn in the USG's side) would like to help.
        
        Bring on the popcorn!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 12:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If only a country would have the balls to do something like that to the USJ and the US! But the consequences would be dire.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        G Thompson (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 3:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually New Zealand would be the country to do it, though Spain (really via the International Court of Justice) did come close when placing warrants onto the Bush 6 way awhile ago for crimes against humanity.
        
        For those who forget the "Bush 6" were exAttorney General Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo (Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel), Douglas Feith (Undersecretary of Defense for Policy), William Hayne (Donald Rumsfeld's Chief Counsel), Jay Bybee (Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel), and David Addington (Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff)
        
        Sadly the court was pressured into removing the indictments under pain of sanctions. I'll leave it up to the reader to wonder what type of sanctions (I read that as rendition) they meant
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 8:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      US law is a joke. The police are not even required to protect the citizens. Their only job is to uphold the laws as they are written, and they can't even do that without breaking them, themselves. If there's anyone who is surprised that the US is considered rogue by so many foreigners, they are probably naive enough to think that all the police and politicians and corporations work for the public good, too.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 8:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Except a lot of those laws as written do protect citizens.
        
        Like the anti-murder/assult/rape laws that thee police are required to uphold.
        
        It's when we get into laws meant to protect legacy players where we get into the big absurdities.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 1:19pm
  
  Re:
  Nor do any laws they don't like...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 1:24pm
  
  Re:
  "Foreign" laws don't count....
  
  Then New Zealand should let Dotcom go, as he broke US laws, and they don't count...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Alana (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 5:22pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Citation needed
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dave Xanatos, 31 Jul 2012 @ 9:39pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Citation needed"
      
      Agreed. He didn't break any US laws. Just business models.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - That One Guy (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 10:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Didn't you know? Breaking business models, or providing competition is illegal in the US.
        
        While it may not technically be in the books, it doesn't take much time watching the legal scene to see that it is, for all intents and purposes, considered a very serious crime in the US.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bergman (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 8:04pm
  
  Re:
  > "Foreign laws don't count...."
  
  That works the opposite direction too. U.S. laws are foreign in New Zealand.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Uncle Sam's Aunt, 31 Jul 2012 @ 8:08pm
    
    Re: Re:
    What kind of fool law could those godless monkeys have that would stop us from exercising our god given right to destroy new business models in favor of our outdated ones?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 4:42am
  
  Re:
  And yet we apply local laws to foreign offenses? This is nothing more than a power play.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh, 1 Aug 2012 @ 10:41am
  
  Re: Richard
  Actually a law states that when abroad you must follow local laws. Not sure of the exact law and truely don't care enough to look it up. If you break a law in another country you are responsible for righting it. Just like breaking a law in another state. Some people are just bullies and I believe my country in very much a bully. Kinda like a Nun with a ruler. She will help the crying baby, the weak and the sick, but rap the toddler, and adolescent on the knuckles.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Al, 2 Aug 2012 @ 9:05pm
  
  Re:
  and US laws don't count in foreign countries either
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 11:31am

Ahem:
Various Anonymous Cowards who like to spout "it's the law, so you it's right" nonsense: this is your time to stand up and show us you're at least willing to be consistent.

We're waiting....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 11:38am
  
  Re: Ahem:
  All's fair in love and copyright litigation?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 11:41am
  
  Re: Ahem:
  Expect us!
  
  Signed: the crickets.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- IP Lover, 31 Jul 2012 @ 12:29pm
  
  Re: Ahem:
  |Various Anonymous Cowards who like to spout "it's the law, so you it's right" nonsense: this is your time to stand up and show us you're at least willing to be consistent.
  
  It is not the law that the US of RIAA Justice Department follows the laws of other countries ;-)
  So in reality by not returning the data they are following the law!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 1:35pm
    
    Re: Re: Ahem:
    Oh no yet another complete moron on the internet who knows not of what he speaks. You are governed by liars and cheats that you vote for you deserve what you get, but the rest of the planet does not want you, please do the planet a favour and commit suicide.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 1:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Ahem:
      seems the rest of the planet holds its breath alot when they want free money, free technology, or free food from the USA... not defending the action, but you do seem to want us and the free things we send you...
      
      The action is inexcusable (kinda like a lot of the actions recently) and in reality the Justice Department (if it wants to live up to its name and restore some faith in being "a Country of laws") needs to resend the extradition, pay for its actions, and issue and apology
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chargone (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 4:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahem:
        In this case we're talking about New Zealand...
        
        the only people who 'hold their breath' wanting anything from the US is various government twits who are obsessed with 'free trade' deals, no matter how damaging.
        
        pretty much everyone else would really rather US interests just fucked off and left us alone. likewise Chinese. (we're not huge fans of the French, either, when we bother thinking about it, though that's an entirely different story.)
        
        seriously, so far as i can tell, ignoring the entire stupid situation with dairy products, we'd do fine ditching all interaction with everyone but Australia, Korea, and Japan. (and the smaller pacific islands that don't count as 'south east asia', but that's more for their benefit. also, we have issues with Japan sometimes, but they're of an entirely different nature. mostly over whales. an issue which can be directly traced back to US actions, apparently.)
        
        this probably isn't terribly accurate when you get down to the numbers and such, but it certainly looks and feels that way. (seriously, our primary interactions with the US seem to be adding troops to their stupidity, usually engineers to reduce how badly screwed over the locals get, and getting dicked over by our government's reactions to their diplomats and 'intelligence' agencies.)
        
        also, i think you mean rescind (i think that's the word i'm after) not resend :P
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 6:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Ahem:
      Watch out, there's laws against that kind of internet speech in the UK.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 1:01pm
  
  Re: Ahem:
  Various Anonymous Cowards who like to spout "it's the law, so you it's right" nonsense: this is your time to stand up and show us you're at least willing to be consistent.
  
  We're waiting....
  
  I love how you guys are totally willing to accept that the federal court in Virginia doesn't have jurisdiction over Megaupload, despite having transacted business there for years. Yet you assume without question that the court in New Zealand had jurisdiction over the United States to order it to act. Hilarious.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 31 Jul 2012 @ 1:05pm
    
    Re: Re: Ahem:
    "I love how you guys are totally willing to accept that the federal court in Virginia doesn't have jurisdiction over Megaupload, despite having transacted business there for years. Yet you assume without question that the court in New Zealand had jurisdiction over the United States to order it to act. Hilarious."
    
    I guess you missed the part where the people like YOU who claim to stand for law and order have now been called out. The "law and order" and whatnot of New Zealand has made a ruling, do you acknowledge it and demand the U.S. follow it or do you shill/troll out and not give an answer? Oh wait... you just did. Okay, that's cool.
    
    So obviously we see where YOU stand. Any others want to try answering?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 1:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Ahem:
      Show me the rule of law that the U.S has violated, and prove that the court in New Zealand has the jurisdiction (authority) to issue a binding order on the U.S. You can't. You're just doing what all the Techdirtbags do: You're starting with the conclusion that the government is doing something wrong, and then trying to make the facts fit the conclusion. You haven't proved the U.S. has done anything wrong, and nor can you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 31 Jul 2012 @ 1:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahem:
        And you can definitively show me proof Kim Dotcom has done wrong? And by definitively I mean exact proof supporting anything you claim he has done. Not what you believe he has done, or what possible laws he may have broken and what he could possibly be charged under and whatnot. DEFINITIVE PROOF.
        
        By all means, present it. You show me first and I'll show you.
        
        But, suffice it to say, I don't care one way or another. I just find it hypocritical that you and a few other ACs demand everyone else follows U.S. law, but in this one instance where a New Zealand court has ruled that the U.S. violated New Zealand law, you're like "blah blah blah Pirate Mike blah blah blah pirates blah blah blah hack". Which goes right back to the point that law and order are great when it's your side doing what you want them to, but when anyone else has law and order on their side you're quick to dismiss it or start insulting others (see your previous bit about Mike for an example of that).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 1:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahem:
        Can I prove that Dotcom has definitively done wrong? No. Never claimed I could. Fact is, the grand jury issued an indictment and a warrant for his arrest was issued. He was arrested. He is awaiting extradition so he may be tried. I'm not sure you understand the law. The government will have to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
        
        My point is that Pirate Mike has not, and cannot, even name the "rule of law" he thinks the U.S. has violated. This is just more FUD and yellow journalism from the internet's slimiest flim-flam man. Pirate Mike doesn't care or know if the U.S. has actually done anything illegal. But he damn well will surely milk the idea that the U.S. has done wrong for every ounce of FUD that it's worth.
        
        If you can't see that Pirate Mike is a manipulative liar who throws accusations out there without even attempting to back them up, then you're not a very perceptive person. Mike "Manipulator" Masnick = All smoke and mirrors.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 1:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahem:
        LOL
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 1:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahem:
        Mike doesnt have to proved that the US broke NZ law, the TOP court in NZ has already decided that they DID break NZ law in their handling and actions.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 31 Jul 2012 @ 2:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahem:
        You'd do a better job of making a point without resorting to the ad homs against Mike. Also, Mike need not name the "rule of law" that has been violated. Obviously, for those of us in the class who suffer from reading disabilities, it needs to be spelled out. THE COURT IN NEW ZEALAND HAS RULED THAT THE U.S. BROKE THE LAW IN GETTING SAID DATA OUT OF THE COUNTRY. What part about that is so difficult for you to comprehend? Mike is just reporting on it. He doesn't have to be a legal expert to report on said fact. It DOES NOT change the fact, nor does it make the court's ruling invalid. So get the fuck over it already.
        
        There is no FUD going on here, beyond what you're spreading. There is no yellow journalism, or manipulation. It is one man reporting and stating his opinion on the facts as they are being presented. That being, the U.S. has officially and legally fucked up, and has been called on it by the New Zealand court. Would you like to respond to that fact? Or you want to keep going on about Mike? I'm all but sure you'll do the latter, but try and not be a manipulative little FUD-spreader and actually acknowledge that the U.S. fucked up legally.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 3:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahem:
        Please link to the ruling. Why talk about the ruling without providing a link?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 5:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahem:
        Are you implying that its ok to refute information that is said to be supposedly based on facts?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 9:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahem:
        http://static.stuff.co.nz/files/DotCom
        
        I linked to the ruling. Now what?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dave Xanatos, 31 Jul 2012 @ 9:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahem:
        Now what?
        
        Expect us.
        -Crickets
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 3:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahem:
        Crap, you managed to dodge Dark Helmet's challenge and troll hard while at that. You, sir, are a master Jedi troll.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Haywood (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 1:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahem:
        Let's see; out right breaking and entering, theft of property, burglary. They took this data/ equipment without legal basis and now are playing Bonnie and Clyde crossing into Oklahoma and flipping off the authorities on the other side of the border.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Tunnen (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 1:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahem:
        From my understanding, the data that is in question was taken from New Zealand. I would say that would give them jurisdiction on the hard drive matter. Also Kim Dotcom was in New Zealand and the US wants to extradite him. That would give New Zealand jurisdiction over granting his extradition.
        
        If you turn the tables a bit and say China decided it wanted to extradite Larry Page from the US because they believe he is breaking China's censorship laws. In the process they copied a lot of Google's data, including user data and emails, from US based servers and took it back to China because they claim it's evidence in their trail against him. Also, they block access to all Google services to the rest of the world while they make weak arguments about why they are "right" and Google is evil and that the US shouldn't question them and just hand Larry over without making a fuss. Do you think that that would be okay?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 3:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahem:
        to answer your question: TEH US has violated a court order issued in New Zealand. The US, as a party to proceedings in New Zealand, is subject to it's jurisdiction. the court in NZ CAN order a binding order on the US for matters that are within its jurisdiction, as is this one. It CANNOT enforce them, since there is no supranational police force. HOWEVER a court in NZ could declare the US to be in contempt of court and this could ultimately lead to the extradition case being thrown out, and at the very least to evidence obtained unlawfully not admitted in the extradition case. Answer your question? start with studying the basics of the law before you make authoritative statements about it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 8:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahem:
        Actually... Umm, New Zealand is where we're talking about, right now, and if the US, which presented a case in New Zealand, cannot abide by the rules of the court there, then their own court case has no weight, either. I can prove that NZ has jurisdiction easily. Want to see?
        
        The case in question is a motion to extradite Kim Dotcom from New Zealand. If NZ doesn't have jurisdiction, then who does? Certainly not the US, or Dotcom would already be over here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 1:06pm
    
    Re: Re: Ahem:
    "I love how you guys are totally willing to accept that the federal court in Virginia doesn't have jurisdiction over Megaupload, despite having transacted business there for years."
    
    I've done business with England for years without ever setting foot there.
    I'm an American citizen.
    Can England deport me or seize my assets without a trial?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 1:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Ahem:
      I don't know English law. Sorry.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 2:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahem:
        You sure seem to know NZ law though!
        
        LOL
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 3:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahem:
        I never claimed any such thing. I'm merely pointing out the obvious (and unfortunately, what's par for the course): Pirate Mike claims that the U.S. violated the law, but he (of course!) doesn't even mention the law that was supposedly broken or begin to prove his argument. My argument is that Pirate Mike hasn't supported his claim (again, for the billionth time). LOL
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 3:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahem:
        I'm sorry, but...
        
        Don't courts kind of...
        
        Have the last say in what the law is?
        
        If the supreme court of NZ says that the U.S. has violated NZ laws, then, no matter how you look at it...
        
        The U.S. has violated NZ laws.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 31 Jul 2012 @ 8:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahem:
        As I pointed out to you multiple times already, it doesn't matter. Mike DOES NOT need to mention the exact law. He links to the appropriate place to further read on the issue. He makes his opinion known on the subject. Basically, end of story. You keep going on about Mike not mentioning the specific law the U.S. violated, without seeming to realize how unimportant that is. It still doesn't change what happened. So seriously, again, get the fuck over it already.
        
        Going on and on about Mike is seriously detracting from any possible respect you may have received from others and certainly detracts from any point you could have potentially made. And, again, for the sake of trying to teach you something, stop with the ad homs. "Pirate Mike" this and "Pirate Mike" that DO NOTHING to help get your point across. It just makes people see you have no point to make.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 9:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahem:
        http://static.stuff.co.nz/files/DotCom
        
        I linked to the ruling, again. Know how I found it? By following the links in the article back to the article Mike was originally discussing which links to the ruling. Showing, once more, that you are a liar and a shill. See, if you don't take the few moments to make sure your statements are factual, you will be caught out in your lies.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - RD, 31 Jul 2012 @ 2:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Ahem:
      "Can England deport me or seize my assets without a trial?"
      
      No, because they arent the US of A.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 11:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahem:
        TV Shack ring a bell?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Prisoner 201, 31 Jul 2012 @ 1:18pm
    
    Re: Re: Ahem:
    "I love how you guys are totally willing to accept that the federal court in Virginia doesn't have jurisdiction over Megaupload, despite having transacted business there for years. Yet you assume without question that the court in New Zealand had jurisdiction over the United States to order it to act. Hilarious."
    
    There is so many logical fallacies in that statement that I am going to have to lie down for a while with a bag of ice on my head.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 3:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Ahem:
      Great job disproving anything that I said. Not.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Prisoner 201, 1 Aug 2012 @ 3:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahem:
        Whoa. The shtroll does not like its own medicine. Shocker.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - techflaws (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 3:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahem:
        Great job of disproving people who linked to the law you claimed was not violated by the US. Not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 1:59pm
    
    Re: Re: Ahem:
    LOL
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 2:58pm
    
    Re: Re: Ahem:
    i seem to remember reading that on another comment post on another entry, and that post then taken to peices by reasoned argument. I will therefore assume meta-irony and vote 'funny'.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 3:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Ahem:
      Really, not even a link? Very persuasive. Not.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - RadialSkid (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 9:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahem:
        What's with the "not" all of a sudden? What is this, 1991?
        
        "Techdirt sure is bogus! I'm going to catch a tubular wave and ride the gnarly cash train of RIAA astroturfing! Radical, dudes!"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        gnudist, 31 Jul 2012 @ 9:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahem:
        The internet exists n wayne's world, don't you ever read up on technology?
        
        /party time
        //EXCELLENT!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - G Thompson (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 10:27pm
    
    Re: Re: Ahem:
    The difference is that Megaupload has NEVER had a legal presence in the USA, whereas in the Kim Dotcom case in new Zealand the USJ is an actual party to the legal matter and therefore has a full presence and is available for any court orders against it.
    
    The same would apply in the USA.
    
    So have you any more stupid comment/statements you'd like totally shot down in flames?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 3:16am
    
    Re: Re: Ahem:
    "Yet you assume without question that the court in New Zealand had jurisdiction over the United States to order it to act. Hilarious."
    
    US law enforcement abroad vs. Justice: 1-0
    Law vs. common sense: 1-0
    Double standards vs ethos: 1-0
    etc, etc...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris-Mouse (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 11:37am

According to the DOJ, US laws apply everywhere in the world, but other laws only apply to the USA when the government finds it convenient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 11:39am

Ira Rothken should file an injunction against the kiwi court - no kangaroo jokes, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 12:00pm
  
  Confused
  Even if I wanted to make a joke... what do kangaroos have to do with kiwis?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 12:17pm
    
    Re: Confused
    They hump the birds to make dodos?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 11:39am

"I don't want to play anymore. I'm taking your ball and going home."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 11:40am

This won't end well for the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 11:42am
  
  Re:
  It's what every sane person that's not related to the MAFIAA hope.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Glen, 31 Jul 2012 @ 1:05pm
  
  Re:
  I sure hope not. And this is someone that loves his country and what the Constitution used to be. Or what I thought it was at one time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
gorehound (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 11:41am

What do you think of those Apples
So, how do you think things will go for us here in the States?
Just wondering if you enjoy the nice Orwellian Scene which is unfolding before our eyes little by little.
We are seeing the World we were all warned about slowly happening before our very eyes.
We are losing our Rights one by one.Each Month we lose another Right.Soon we won't have any more to lose.
I truly hate this Government and I truly hate this Political System.
You Politicians can lick my dog's butt !
DOJ You can have sloppy seconds !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 11:45am
  
  Re: What do you think of those Apples
  It is sad. I know a few good Americans that don't deserve the Government they have. And it's pretty clear to them (and anybody else with half a neuron) that the Americans are caught up in one of the worse electoral systems in the world because it has locked them up between only two political parties and an Electoral College (whatever you call) that actually chooses who goes up there (allowing absurds like the losing candidate be elected as President).
  
  You have my sympathy my friend. We still hate your Govt with passion though.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MRK, 31 Jul 2012 @ 12:21pm
    
    Re: Re: What do you think of those Apples
    The American election system is far more nuanced than that.
    
    E.g. the Electoral college preserves federalism in that it ensures small states like Rhode Island still have a voice in the presidential election process, else the massive states like California, New York, and Texas would dictate all national policy.
    
    It is not the system that is broken, but the people charged with enforcing the Rule of Law (Department of Justice) have become complacent. It is essentially regulatory capture at the government level.
    
    Who Watches the Watchers? It certainly isn't the American people; they have no power to make change. Only elect people who promise reform and never deliver.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ltlw0lf (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 12:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: What do you think of those Apples
      E.g. the Electoral college preserves federalism in that it ensures small states like Rhode Island still have a voice in the presidential election process, else the massive states like California, New York, and Texas would dictate all national policy.
      
      It doesn't even do that particularly well. Rhode Island gets 4 votes. California gets 55. So, Rhode Island doesn't get much of a voice. Where it does help is that, if Rhode Island (4), Conneticut (7), Vermont (3), New Hampshire (4), Maine (4), New York (29), and New Jersey (14) all vote a different way from California, then their voice is heard. If electoral colleges were required to follow the will of their constituents, then it might be a good system, but with states not requiring it, the electoral college tends to vote for whatever party put it into office and not for the will of the people.
      
      It made sense when politicians had to travel great distances by covered wagon to meet their constituents, but in the modern era, there are far better ways of doing this.
      
      It is not the system that is broken, but the people charged with enforcing the Rule of Law (Department of Justice) have become complacent. It is essentially regulatory capture at the government level.
      
      It isn't just the people charged with enforcing the law, but the entire population that has become complacent. We have the power to vote who represents us in Congress and most people don't care enough to look at the people they are voting in and would much rather just vote for their party or on key issues. The fact that more than a few have shown time and time again that they are corrupt and voting against the wishes of their own constituents, and yet we keep voting them in.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - mischab1, 31 Jul 2012 @ 5:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you think of those Apples
        If I looked too hard, I probably wouldn't vote for anyone. :p
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 12:53pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: What do you think of those Apples
      People could have more power if they take the process of making the laws out into the open, then electing officials would be a matter to see who would pass the legislation that people want and not promises, promises and promises, the downside to that is that people would have to take responsibility for the screw ups that eventually would happen.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - ltlw0lf (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 2:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you think of those Apples
        People could have more power if they take the process of making the laws out into the open, then electing officials would be a matter to see who would pass the legislation that people want and not promises, promises and promises, the downside to that is that people would have to take responsibility for the screw ups that eventually would happen.
        
        This. Sunlight is always the best antiseptic. Making things transparent in government is the best way to assure that the will of the people is being followed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rich, 31 Jul 2012 @ 12:55pm
  
  Re: What do you think of those Apples
  "You Politicians can lick my dog's butt !"
  
  I wouldn't let that scum touch my dogs butt!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2012 @ 7:59am
  
  Re: What do you think of those Apples
  so what are u gonna do about it? just sit there at your computer and post comments? go and fuckin do something about it im here in canada and the corrupted polotical system in the us is making its way into canadian politics u americans are ignorant and if u know whats going on then your lazy for nopt doing anything.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
weneedhelp (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 11:46am

From villian to victim

Kim Dotcom went from this

To this

To this

Thanks America
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 11:49am
  
  Re: From villian to victim
  You, sir, are doing it right.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 7:05am
  
  Re: From villian to victim
  Yes, because this never would have happened had MCain been elected. .. rolls eyes ..
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 11:48am

I wonder, wouldn't this be a pretty strong point against the US in all the process? If the accusation refuses to comply with court orders how can they support their claims.

But in the end it's what I said in an earlier article: the damage is already done, MU has been taken out of business. My hope is that Kim Dotcom gets enough support to restart once he's cleared of all charges (as it seems it may happen in the end).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baldaur Regis (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 11:56am

I Say Old Bean...
...the Justice Department, who is supposed to be enforcing the rule of law, doesn't believe such rule of law applies to its own activities.
Yes, and my butler spends his days drinking whiskey with the cook. The connection? Both are grand to have, clean up well, and are useful on occasion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Martinet (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 12:01pm

What we Need
To heck with "rogue sites"

We need something to deal with "rogue" departments (DOJ, USTR, etc)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kelly (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 12:04pm

I wonder if the New Zealand government will move to have the agents who seized the material extradited to New Zealand. I doubt the court or government would be able to bring charges against the FBI at large but perhaps it could bring them against the specific agents in this situation if the FBI continues to refuse to turn the data and servers back over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 3:24pm
  
  Re:
  they could and should
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chargone (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 5:05pm
  
  Re:
  I believe the USA has a law against extraditing their citizens, or some such nonsense...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - G Thompson (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 10:33pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Absolutely, though an International Interpol warrant would restrict their personal travelling since if they step foot outside of America they would be at risk of arrest, and this includes travelling to Canada and even Mexico.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Danny (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 4:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    They have actually extradited quite a few Americans to the UK, so the law can't be that strong.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ritt Momney, 31 Jul 2012 @ 12:05pm

For shame.
It is the USA's moral imperative to assert US jurisdiction when other nations fail, whether through inaction or legislative ineptitude. I find it funny so many people are attacking the USA when it is New Zealand that has failed to protect musicians and other artists. Shame on all of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 12:14pm
  
  Re: For shame.
  I would love to see you assert jurisdiction in Soviet Russia ;)
  
  From your nickname I"ll assume you are being sarcastic so marked funny.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 12:19pm
    
    Re: Re: For shame.
    In Soviet Russia, Jurisdiction extradites YOU!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jim O (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 1:10pm
  
  Re: For shame.
  You're right.... sort of.
  
  None of this would have happened if New Zealand had simply gone by the law when the US first came-a-knocking.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Tunnen (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 1:45pm
    
    Re: Re: For shame.
    You mean follow the US law that even the US is ignoring or trying to twist it into something that doesn't even resemble the original intent?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chargone (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 5:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: For shame.
      I'm pretty sure he means (or should) 'by telling the US to fuck off as they didn't have a case and/or not enacting an illegal warrant with what amounted to commando raids and other such bullshit.'
      
      because, seriously, none of it was done right.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 1:23pm
  
  Re: For shame.
  What an imbecile you are, have you no shame at spouting such nonsense?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 1:03pm
    
    Re: Re: For shame.
    you're a genius eh blue boy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Barack Obama, 31 Jul 2012 @ 2:08pm
  
  Re: For shame.
  YOU Sir have not understood the "Hope and Change" I have brought to the USA and NZ on this matter. Kim Dotcom has received his "CHANGE" by the bucket load (rich to poor, business man to prisoner) and all hope of the future is gone.
  
  And you are trying to get this fithly rich man more tax breaks to steal from the very artist and actors that support me... SHAME ON YOU SIR!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 1:05pm
    
    Re: Re: For shame.
    you however, red boy are a real genius. Hopy changy, I can get behind that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2012 @ 8:26am
  
  Re: For shame.
  protect them from what exactly? real artists dont need to be paid for there creations or expressions. you americans only care about profit and act in such a matter. if your soul intent of creating art is capital gain then you are no artist your an entrepenuer. if people are enjoying what you have created as an artist that should be satisfying enough not a couple extra zeros at the end of a pay cheque. shame on you sir.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2012 @ 1:10am
  
  Re: For shame.
  Fuck off nazi bastard
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 12:07pm

so, will the NZ government put in a request to have those responsible extradited to NZ? more to the point, if that happens, will the US government comply just as they expect every other country to do or will they ignore the request? now that would prove rather interesting, wouldn't it, considering how they think that they have the right to do what they please anywhere in the world with anyone they choose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chargone (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 5:08pm
  
  Re:
  it's pretty much a given they'll refuse.
  
  didn't they pass a law to that effect sometime in the last few years? 'US citizens don't get extradited' or something?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shane, 31 Jul 2012 @ 12:27pm

Revolution
LISTEN SHEEP: Enough is enough. Our government and political system has gotten out of control. The people in power have misused it and a better system needs to be built.

@gorehound You recognize the reality and dire urgency of this situation and the best you can muster is "I hate this government" ?! Stand up for yourselves and your rights as human beings. Our very livelihood is being DICTATED and ERADICATED by power-hungry elites that have long lost touch with reality; individuals who care far more about the well-being of their assets than the well-being of their fucking fellow citizens!

They have nothing but money, which in this broken world quantifies power. These elites are terrified by the prospects of a currency-collapse... far more than any of us. The possibility of losing their power has caused them to respond with a more direct application of power: Force.

You think the decline in freedom and the increase in government-applied force (via police force, surveillance, taxation, ect) is bad now? Wait till you see what happens if this despicable behavior continues to go uncontested.

Our faith in the dollar gives it power. Our fear of resisting the government gives it free-reign. The time is now. WAKE UP!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 1 Aug 2012 @ 5:09am
  
  Re: Revolution
  Exactly right. We are going to have to push TOWARDS economic collapse in order to restore the balance of power. Its going to be messy and painful, but it is the only way.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 1:12pm
    
    Re: Re: Revolution
    You guys don't realize it but economic collapse just plays into these clowns hands.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2012 @ 8:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Revolution
      yes exactly they want anarchy they want chaos. becasue with chaos comes order. the new world order.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anon, 31 Jul 2012 @ 12:34pm

mmmmmmmmm
Seriously the American People need to get there house in order, this is unacceptable for a 1st world nation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 1:14pm
  
  Re: mmmmmmmmm
  but the US of A is no longer a 1st world country. The playing field is being rapidly leveled.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dirkmaster (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 12:35pm

Surprise, surprise....
Apparently, the Justice Department, who is supposed to be enforcing the rule of law, doesn't believe such rule of law applies to its own activities.

To no one's great surprise. This entire administration doesn't believe the rules apply to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RD, 31 Jul 2012 @ 2:16pm
  
  Re: Surprise, surprise....
  "To no one's great surprise. This entire administration doesn't believe the rules apply to them."
  
  Oh yeah! It's only THIS adminstration that thinks that! It's ONLY since that black man took office that the govt has started acting like they are above the law, and breaks its own rules whenever it wants. ONLY NOW!!!!
  
  Seriously, where the fuck do you people come from? Have you been asleep for the past 40+ years or something?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - silverscarcat (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 3:53pm
    
    Re: Re: Surprise, surprise....
    But,　I wasn't alive 40+ years ago.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chargone (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 5:13pm
    
    Re: Re: Surprise, surprise....
    ... is there a word for 'the entire system'?
    you say 'government' and people tend to go 'oh, the opposition party are fine then'.
    'administration' is the wrong word here, yes, but mostly because it doesn't include the bureaucracy, which is where a lot of the problem (though certainly FAR from all of it) lies.
    
    basically, you guys need a revolution. (because logistics mean that the only sort of attack i see working to bring the US down any other way start with covert insertion of nuclear devices into your major cities, which is kind of uncool)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 1:07pm

Perhaps the US should send a military force to forceably extract Dotcom since the NZ government refuses to abide by our laws. Along with his nitty lawyer Ira Rothken. He's aiding and abetting the violation of US law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 1:26pm
  
  Re:
  As most Americans you appear to be yet another moron. The USA is a country that needs destroying immediately because it is the most corrupt and corrupted nation on the planet. It is governed by liars and cheats and the American public en mass is the largest collective of idiots ever known to man
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chargone (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 5:14pm
    
    Re: Re:
    not that most other governments are any better, mind you. they're just not so far out of physical knife range of the people they supposedly answer to.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 1:17pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Fine point of view, kill the innocents and leave the sky daddy to sort them out.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 1:16pm
  
  Re:
  drone attack
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 1:08pm

Apparently, the Justice Department, who is supposed to be enforcing the rule of law, doesn't believe such rule of law applies to its own activities.

Good grief, Pirate Mike. Could you be any bigger of a whiner? Show me the "rule of law" that the U.S. is violating. What is the exact law? You can't do it.

You're doing what you always do: You're making legal arguments without consulting the actual law. But now we all know that your legal conclusions don't depend on the actual law. For example, you're willing to say that copyright law violates the limited times restriction without even mentioning the fact that a majority of the Supreme Court had explicitly held that it wasn't.

The fact is, you don't care what the law actually is. You have zero interest in applying the actual law. You want to make legal conclusions ("the U.S. is violating the rule of law!") but without the hassle of looking at the actual law.

What a fucking joke. You're a total and complete joke, Pirate Mike. And you fucking know it. You're a hack and a charlatan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 1:39pm
  
  Re:
  US government wants to extradite a New Zealand citizen to the US to face prosecution in a criminal trial. In order for something like that to work, both the US and New Zealand police would have to work within the rules of law enforcement and obey any court orders.
  If the guys doing the prosecuting are violating both their own and New Zealand's laws (re: copying the data and even worse, refusing to allow Kim Dotcom's defence team have a look at it), then they have no case. Not only that, but when called out on it and ordered by the COURT...they refuse. Now strictly speaking, the US doesn't have to follow the orders of a New Zealand judge, but in the case of an extradition request, it certainly helps if they do.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chargone (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 5:31pm
    
    Re: Re:
    technically Dotcom is not a citizen of New Zealand, just a Resident. though i believe the difference amounts to him being on probation and our government can chuck him out if he doesn't meet the terms.
    
    which is completely unrelated from this (as they'd send him back to a country he does have citizenship in, i believe. or possibly whichever one he was last in prior to coming here. either way, not the USA.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 5:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's a very important point here. No matter how all of this turns out, I suspect that the NZ people responsible for residency would review his standing. Considering all he did was promise to "invest" his ill gotten gains in the country, it's very likely that he no longer makes it to their standards.
      
      I wouldn't be shocked to see his residency revoked at all. Then he gets sent on to some other country, where he is likely to once again face extradition. On it goes, until the US gets it's way and gets him into a US court.
      
      Of course, Kim can join Assange in hiding in an embassy looking for asylum. That ain't a pretty picture, is it?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 2:01pm
  
  Re:
  LOL
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 2:52pm
  
  Re:
  OK... I'll bite...
  
  The DOJ was invited into a sovereign country to assist with an arrest warrant and evidence gathering. New Zealand confiscated certain items of the accused (a citizen of New Zealand). The US then took this evidence out of the country without permission. I'm no expert in New Zealand law, but we have something similar in the United States... When you take something that doesn't belong to you without permission it's called theft, and it is illegal. Assuming that New Zealand has a similar prohibition against taking that which is not yours without permission of the owner, then I would say it's pretty clear which "rule of law" has been violated. In fact, since New Zealand wouldn't want non-experts in their law to have to figure this out on their own, they were kind enough to affirm that the United States did in fact steal this evidence and were even nice enough to simply ask for them to return it.
  
  Does that help clear things up for you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JMT (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 4:58pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "The US then took this evidence out of the country without permission."
    
    It's worse than that. They took it out of the country against the explicit instructions of the judge. That's the "rule of law" that Mike's referring to, a simple fact that our anonymous friend seems to be struggling with.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - mischab1, 31 Jul 2012 @ 5:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      My guess is that by the time the judge said to not do it, it was too late. The evidence had already left the country.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - That One Guy (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 10:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        From what I've heard, and I may be wrong on this, the 'do not remove evidence out of the country' order was given before the assault on the mansion even took place.
        
        So they knew about the order well before they stole the stuff and removed it to the US, they just didn't care.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 2:46pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Not a citizen of NZ, and a copy of evidence, not the actual evidence... other than that, you're still full of shit.
    
    When you take something that doesn't belong to you without permission it's called theft, and it is illegal.
    
    I thought it would be called infringement? Oh, the irony.....
    
    Does that help clear things up for you?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 3:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Infringement doesn't involve removing the original from another's possession, which is exactly what happened here.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 7:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wouldn't you have to speak to New Zealand about that?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- drew (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 3:01pm
  
  Re:
  I've reported this comment, it's the same as one above but with added ad homs, more going off topic and even less coherence.
  So basically, reported for being a cunt.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 4:26pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I've reported this comment, it's the same as one above but with added ad homs, more going off topic and even less coherence.
    So basically, reported for being a cunt.
    
    Why don't you respond to my points rather than reporting me and bragging about it like a little censoring twit? Pirate Mike is a manipulative sack of shit, and I'll "ad hom" him whenever I want. If he wants to prove me wrong, he can jump into the comments and defend himself. He doesn't need an army of twits like yourself who "report" people without adding anything to the discussion. Great job, twit. You fit right in around here with the mouth-breathers and basement-dwellers. Kudos.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 4:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If you want people to have a reasonable discussion with you it would help if you wrote your comments in a reasonable way.
      
      You know, like not doing ad homs.
      
      Would you want to hold a conversation with a guy on the street that just kept calling you names? Probably not.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JMT (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 5:02pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Pirate Mike is a manipulative sack of shit, and I'll "ad hom" him whenever I want."
      
      And you'll continue to be ridiculed and your opinions dismissed as a result. That's just how adults treat rude children.
      
      "If he wants to prove me wrong, he can jump into the comments and defend himself."
      
      You really don't understand how this open commenting thing works do you? Poor boy.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 5:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      >Pirate Mike is a manipulative sack of shit, and I'll "ad hom" him whenever I want.
      
      So you've acknowledged that you believe insults to be an acceptable replacement for debate. Really, you're not here to "debate" anyone. You're here to kick up a mess and expect others to clean up after you, and you whine when people call you out for this.
      
      You are twice the manipulative sack of shit Masnick allegedly is, and we'll "ad hom" you whenever we want. Feel better now that the playing field is level?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 6:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        On the contrary, I want to debate MM more than anything. Unfortunately, he's not a stand-up persons and he doesn't defend what he publishes. He doesn't stand behind his own words. He makes claims like the DOJ are violating the "rule of law" but has neither the means nor the inclination to even try and back that up. It's just more anti-government FUD from the world's biggest IP whiner. So yeah, because I've seen him time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time run away when called out for his nonsense, and because I know for a fact that he has no intention of publishing the truth, I call him out for being a shit.
        
        And all you guys can do is obsess over the fact that I'm pointing out the fact that he's a sack of shit. None of you ever wonders why your pirate leader won't defend his own words. He's obviously in bad faith. He's obviously only trying to manipulate. He obviously doesn't care what the actual law is in making his legal arguments.
        
        But yeah, let's focus on me and not Ole Chubby.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 7:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He has stood up for his words many times, silly short term memory troll. Don't see why he needs to weigh in here since others are doing a good job talking about this and, you know, the fact he LINKED TO AN ARTICLE WHERE A HIGH COURT JUDGE SAID THE SEIZURE AND OFFSHORING WAS IILEGAL.
        
        I don't see one damn reason why MM has to even give an jerk like you the time of day since all you do is spout nonsense and insult him.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 7:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your definition of "focusing" on "Ole Chubby" is bookmarking instances of where you insulted him and made fun of him for refusing to respond to your ad hominem. What kind of decent human being considers this to be "focus" and "debate"?
        
        Okay, sure, we'll play by your rules. Why don't you post all the hyperlinked instances of where you "think" Masnick was bullshitting, and you called him out for it? You did mention once your collection was building up to a hundred or so and that you'd post the list for laughs. So go ahead - why don't you put your links where your mouth is? Show us lowly ignorant peons your infinite wisdom of "fuck off and die".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 31 Jul 2012 @ 8:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hey you can't put that "fuck off and die" bit! That's violating his privacy!
        
        Lol. Jk. It's really sad how he thinks he's truly "anonymous". Especially considering how quickly he outs himself. There's only one AC who claims to want to "debate" Mike, yet does nothing but post ad homs, then goes insanely off topic when people call him out on his "debate" tactics and just starts harping on about Mike rather than... you know... addressing the point or saying something worth of debate.
        
        Report his comments and move on I say. We're all better off for it. And I'm not saying report his comments because it's him or to be a dick, I'm saying report them because they're off topic, offensive, etc.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 8:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, I post anonymously but I at least realise that I have certain phrases I use that identify me as "That anonymous coward*" and yet the anti-techdirt trollACs never seem to grasp this in all their time shitting all over the comments.
        
        *No relation to the user who calles himself/herself that. :P
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 2:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And here I took the name to redeem the epithet it had become.
        
        I think what your all might have missed, is "that" troll is flogging that sad excuse for a reproductive organ in the vain hope Mike will appear and say something to him, this would make him feel validated.
        
        In the future it might just be more useful to reply with buhbye and hit the button, then the grownups can talk.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 8:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Don't hold your breath. Those times where he actually brought up a good point and sent Mike runnig are all in his head.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 2:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not bothering to, but I think this is a good reference point to use whenever he boasts of the many times that Masnick "refused to debate" with him. He's not fooling anyone - he waltzes into every thread with, "Hello, Pirate Mike! I think you're an insert-insult-here. If you don't debate me according to my terms I'll insist you're an insert-insult-here. If you do - I'll just call you that anyway!" and actually thinks this constitutes meaningful debate.
        
        Funny how he can't even put up the evidence behind his boasts. If he's got no qualms about boasting about an alleged track record of Masnick why doesn't he show it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 3:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He makes claims like the DOJ are violating the "rule of law" but has neither the means nor the inclination to even try and back that up.
        
        http://static.stuff.co.nz/files/DotCom
        
        I'm gonna join the game of putting the link up every time you lie about this.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 3:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Why don't you respond to my points rather than reporting me and bragging about it like a little censoring twit?
      
      Stop the whining already!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - drew (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 4:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Why don't you respond to my points rather than reporting me and bragging about it like a little censoring twit? "
      1) Many people have already responded to your points, you just don't like the answer so you make the same point again elsewhere as if that will change things.
      2) Not bragging, explaining to you why your comments keep getting reported.
      3) after which the rest of your comment goes into your usual excretion of bile.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 2:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You guys are feeding this asshat way more than he needs to sustain himself. At this rate the troll will die of obesity.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 5:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So it'd be like starving him, except it's twice as fun? I'm in.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 9:16pm
  
  Re:
  http://static.stuff.co.nz/files/DotCom
  
  Every time you ask for a link, I'm gonna put it up. The US is in violation of NZ law. Your ignorance is really getting abrasive.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 1:29pm

USA = USELESS STUPID ARSEHOLES
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 3:56pm
  
  Re:
  Now, now...
  
  Only the politicians are like that... Most citizens are just ignorant and have no idea how bad copyright law is.
  
  When you explain that even singing "Happy Birthday" in public can get you fined, they start to realize that something's wrong.
  
  Sadly, I found out first hand, a　couple of weeks ago, that some people the current copyright is good. believe that the current copyright is good. �Everything you do will be for your kids. Copyright should last forever for your kids."
  
  And, for that, I wonder if they realize that copyright takes stuff away from their children.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John, 31 Jul 2012 @ 1:31pm

None so blind...
Let's review the facts here. A NZ court has ruled that evidence illegally seized in NZ using an illegal NZ search warrant by NZ police was illegally removed from the country by US agents and has required that evidence to be returned to NZ. Yet the trolls try to pretend that the US has done no wrong and the NZ court has no jurisdiction over that matter?

OK, so the NZ court cannot force the return, but the next time the case comes before the NZ court they will get very short shift. If the required evidence is not provided to the defendant then the prosecution will have their extradition request denied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 1:40pm
  
  Re: None so blind...
  Pretty much what I tried to say up above. Vote for insightful.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 5:04pm
  
  Re: None so blind...
  I don't think we'll have to wait for the next time to see that happen.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
quawonk, 31 Jul 2012 @ 1:31pm

The nerve of sovereign nations having their own laws!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 1:36pm

The U.S.
firmly believes that the U.S. doesn't have to pay attention to the laws of other countries. We are just about the most arrogant and corrupt country in the world.

The bribes the DOJ receives from the entertainment industry encourage them to ignore the laws anyway. The DOJ knows that New Zealand doesn't have a military force strong enough to challenge the U.S. either.

It used to be that the DOJ prided itself in being a guardian for the law, but now it's become a joke. The federal spooks have nothing but contempt for the law or the Constitution; they do whatever they d*** well please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tunnen (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 1:48pm
  
  Re: The U.S.
  "firmly believes that the U.S. doesn't have to pay attention to the laws of other countries."
  
  The US doesn't even follow it's own laws... They don't discriminate by nationality. =P
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - silverscarcat (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 3:57pm
    
    Re: Re: The U.S.
    At least they're consistent.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 2:05pm

Do as we say...NOT AS WE DO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 2:19pm

US gov guilty of content theft?

Say it ain't so
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violated (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 2:30pm

appeals
What is not mentioned here is that the DoJ/FBI are appealing against this ruling along with every other ruling that went against them. That means that they have no lawful reason to comply with this court ruling until the appeals process has been exhausted. That may well go up to the Supreme Court when the DoJ/FBI do not give in easily.

In all until it has been ruled otherwise we can say that the FBI did unlawfully copy these HDDs and are now unlawfully holding on to Kim's property. Unfortunately as they disagree the wheels of Justice turns very slowly which is what they hope for when Mega dies more as every day passes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 3:09pm
  
  Re: appeals
  In fact, they are refusing to state the grounds on which they are appealing - having read the judgement, it's pretty comprehensive and there are no major grounds for appeal. Petty, petty and a waste of taxpayer's money.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chargone (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 5:35pm
    
    Re: Re: appeals
    New Zealand tax payers, no less, who are getting right pissed off with the whole thing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 5:13am
  
  Re: appeals
  In all until it has been ruled otherwise we can say that the FBI did unlawfully copy these HDDs and are now unlawfully holding on to Kim's property.
  
  No, the NZ authorities "shared" this data with the FBI. The original data is still right there in NZ.The FBI hasn't deprived Kim of any property. Right? Isn't that how the justification goes?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 6:10am
    
    Re: Re: appeals
    If the original data was right there in NZ, accessible by Megaupload - then yes, you might have had a point. But it's not, and you don't.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 6:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re: appeals
      Just what does the US's possession of a copy have to do with Kim's access to the original? NZ has custody of that, don't they?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 9:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: appeals
        You're trying to compare apples and oranges. The point that is usually made is that labels holding onto their original copy of the data still has it and can still access it. Having a copy is meaningless if you can't access it.
        
        The US not only "made a copy", they've pretty much said "No, you can't even see your original copy."
        
        So, no. You still don't have a point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 11:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: appeals
        I believe that the original is controlled by NZ.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 5:20am
  
  Re: appeals
  Massnick likes to pretend that the US is in violation when the matter is under appeal. It is not until such a time that appeals are exhausted. However, that inconvenient fact is overlooked as it is inconsistent with his narrative.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 3:13pm

When one is inclined to make definitive, unequivocal statements about the contents of a court decision, prudence dictates that before doing so the decision be read. Had this happened here it would have immediately been apparent that the FBI was not held to have violated NZ law, nor was an order issued for the return to NZ of what was transported by the FBI to the US.

Unless there is some other court decision floating about of which I am unaware, the statements made in the above article regarding the FBI are wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 3:18pm
  
  Re:
  The court's order can be read at:
  
  http://laudafinem.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/dotcom-1.pdf
  
  Note that the US is not a party.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 3:27pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The Crown is representing the US in this matter - the FBI agents present in New Zealand at the time who took the cloned data offshore acted in direct violation to a court order issued days before. All of this is in the judgement, which you do not seem to have read. This is a matter which involves the FBI directly.
    
    Further to this, the FBI holds the data that has been ordered to be returned. Insofar as the FBI is not complying with this order, they are in breach of NZ law.
    
    NZ law was further violated by the unlawfully broad and therefore illegal search warrants. This was officially the responsibility of the Crown, but done on the behest of the FBI - the direct involvement of FBI agents in this matter is well documented.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 3:33pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      A link to the court order you mention would be nice to have. Do you have such a link?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 3:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That order is not available on the net. It is however referenced in the Winkelmann judgement that is linked here. The judgement is an interesting read in any case, because it stops only a little bit short of accusing the Crown lawyers of lying to cover up their actions. It is the most detailed account of what went on on the side of the FBI and the Crown, and it makes for depressing reading if you believe in due process and the rule of law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - mischab1, 31 Jul 2012 @ 7:13pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Your link does not actually include the final court decision. In fact, in the last paragraph it says that there will be another hearing.
    
    [147] I am not at this point prepared to make the remaining orders sought. Given the extent of the challenges, and the nature of my findings, I require to hear futher from counsel as to the appropriate remedy or remedies before making any order. This proceeding can be listed before me at 10am on 4 July 2012 ...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 4:02pm
  
  Re:
  When one is inclined to make definitive, unequivocal statements about the contents of a court decision, prudence dictates that before doing so the decision be read. Had this happened here it would have immediately been apparent that the FBI was not held to have violated NZ law, nor was an order issued for the return to NZ of what was transported by the FBI to the US.
  
  Unless there is some other court decision floating about of which I am unaware, the statements made in the above article regarding the FBI are wrong.
  
  Prudence dictates much, but TD apparently doesn't get the memos. Of course, Mike will not back up his yellow journalistic claims with any sort of law or facts.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Divide by Zero (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 1:33am
    
    Re: Re:
    Can you shut up? Seriously. Take your yellow journalism crap and stop commenting about my country's legal system like you have the first fucking idea what you're talking about.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - G Thompson (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 3:15am
    
    Re: Re:
    Ah Prudence, I knew her well..
    
    Sadly it looks like you have royally screwed her and probably given her crabs since you are the itch of TD that keeps coming back and annoying everyone over and over and over again with the same incessant needy bullshit ridden ad hominen attacks on anyone who doesn't show you the adoration you think you so richly deserve.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techflaws (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 3:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    Of course, Mike will not back up his yellow journalistic claims with any sort of law or facts.
    
    http://static.stuff.co.nz/files/DotCom
    
    And again you're proven wrong. It's so easy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- saulgoode (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 5:43pm
  
  Re:
  I agree that it would be something of a mischaracterization to say the US is not complying with a NZ court order. The court order was that the Crown request that the US return the cloned drives. The US is refusing to comply with the request that was stipulated in the order, not with order itself.
  
  Nonetheless, the US refusal does not bode well for their case. It's sort of like asking a neighbor to mow your lawn, then taking his mower and refusing to return it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 5:07am
    
    Re: Re:
    This is more of Masnick's bullshit headlines distorting the truth. Actually it appears that the data was "shared" with the FBI and that the original data is still in NZ. Or does that line of reason only work for pirating the creative works of others?
    
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/7188234/Dotcom-search-warrants-ruled-ill egal
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 6:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      /facepalm
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - drew (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 6:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So we're agreed that copying isn't theft then?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 6:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No we're agreed that you people are hypocrites who interchange the concepts of theft and sharing as the situation suits you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 1 Aug 2012 @ 7:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        We're not the ones interchanging anything. Technically, that hypocrite would be you.
        
        We are saying, "Hey, the New Zealand court ruled the following. What have you to say about "the rule of law" now?" To which you dismiss it or try saying, "Well, they didn't steal the original data they just copied it." The hypocrite is you. By your own words.
        
        The rest of us are not surprised by the ruling, nor by the actions of the DOJ. And definitely not by the responses of ACs like yourself. In fact, it was the joke up above. "Let's wait and see how they respond to this. Or don't respond to this."
        
        Sharing is loaning someone something with permission and expecting/knowing it will be returned as was lent out at some point.
        
        Copying is making an exact 1:1 duplicate of something, with or without permission, but leaving the original intact and in possession of the owner of said something.
        
        Theft is taking something from someone else and directly depriving them of any and all use of said something.
        
        That is putting things as simply as possible so even a child would understand the difference between the three acts. Sharing, copying, theft. So now that I've explained the different between theft and sharing, care to retract your previous statements?
        
        Or should I go on about (and eventually link to) the information regarding how Kim Dotcom/Megaupload/lawyers have NO access to said data, because it is in U.S. possession? Ditto Megaupload's users, who have also been deprived of said data by U.S. authorities. Putting it, again, as simply as possible, in no uncertain terms can being completely deprived and denied access to said data be anything but theft. If Kim Dotcom/Megaupload/lawyers/users had access to said data (in the form of the exact originals) then you could call it copying, what the U.S. did. If it was understood that they would receive the data back eventually, and had given permission in the first place that it be "shared" with the U.S. then it would be called sharing. But neither of those things were/are the case.
        
        AC you fail based upon sheer logic and simple reasoning.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drew (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 7:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Ira Rothken is out reminding the world that the US has failed to comply with the order to return the data that was illegally taken"
        Was or was not data taken out of NZ by the FBI?
        And has it or has it not been found that it was not done in accordance with NZ law?
        Whether it's a copy or the original (as was originally proposed) isn't, in this case, relevant.
        The only change in position appears to be on your behalf.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 11:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A copy has been made and sent to the US. The matter of legality is being litigated on appeal. I've seen no indication that the judge has ordered the copy returned while the matter is on appeal. Copy versus original is relevant as the US appears not to be the sole source of the data, owning only a copy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drew (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 5:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        copy here: http://www.webpronews.com/kim-dotcom-awarded-access-to-evidence-against-him-2012-05
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2012 @ 10:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        OK, so that was in May. The matter is under appeal (including the 21 day order). Such orders are typically stayed while under appeal as that is the very heart of the matter. If such was not the case, the court could simply hold the USDoJ in contempt, but there's no indication of that either. The original evidence on hard drives still appears to be in NZ under NZ control and the real heart of the matter seems whether Dotcom is entitled to criminal discovery for his US charges to use in a NZ extradition hearing. I don't see that you have anything here.
        
        Thanks for stepping up to the plate, but you whiffed again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drew (profile), 3 Aug 2012 @ 2:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Apparently so, waiting on the latest order/statement to come online unfortunately, only have reports with no links to look at :�(
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 1 Aug 2012 @ 6:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You're really grasping at straws. The data was received/taken/shared/etc in a manner that has now been ruled illegal. End of story. Full stop. Period. Etc.
      
      Now, as one of those people who routinely is on here harping about this or that, and calling the rest of us thieves and criminals, it is worth noting that you are now changing your tune. In this case, you are saying the U.S. did nothing wrong and it was just a copy that was created, no one has been deprived of the original (as factually false a statement as that is, and that can be proven by the simple fact that Kim Dotcom/Megaupload/lawyers DO NOT have access to said data and are being refused access to said data by U.S. authorities). So basically, to reiterate a point made elsewhere, you're all for law and order when it's convenient for you but when it's not you aren't. Your comment above (and several made after) are clear proof of this hypocrisy.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 11:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're really grasping at straws. The data was received/taken/shared/etc in a manner that has now been ruled illegal. End of story. Full stop. Period. Etc.
        
        As stated elsewhere, the matter is under appeal and as far as I know, the judge has not order the copy returned pending the resolution of the litigation End of story. Full stop. Period. Etc.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rikuo (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 8:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      In a trial, the person being accused is supposed to be able to look at the evidence being used against him, so he and/or his lawyers can prepare a proper defence against it, to be used on the day of the trial.
      The FBI took/shared/copied (whatever word you want to use) the data in complete violation of court orders, and then REFUSE to allow Dotcom to see the data.
      What part of that do you not understand? The courts said "Don't do this" but the FBI went ahead and did it anyway. Doing this does not make the US's position look favourable in the NZ judge's eyes. It's up to the NZ judge if Dotcom gets extradited, after all. If the US continues to fuck up like this (actually fuck up is the wrong term to use, because it implies something stupid done occidentally; these are deliberate actions), then he will and ought to dismiss the case.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 3:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Rickuo said occidentally. Is that some kinda western thing?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 7:53pm

Tell us again how they are the bad ones...
Tell us again how they are the evil ones...
Tell us again how breaking the law to uphold the law makes sense...
Tell us again how screwing society for a few cartels piece of mind makes sense...
Tell us again how everyone else is wrong but you were right...
Tell us again, so we can fucking learn the lesson this time and not ever let this bullshit be repeated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 3:45am

NZ should seize any US assets the US government has there and ask the extradition of the people responsible for breaking the law to be punished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2012 @ 5:41am

No one tells Holder what to do!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dondilly, 1 Aug 2012 @ 9:14am

US non compliance
Ultimately the NZ courts have something the US gov wants, Kim Dotcom.

If the US fails to comply with orders given by the NZ courts they should forfeit their extradition application.

This is a no brainer. The order from the NZ courts was for the return of evidence/data illegally obtained through an unlawfull warrant. If the feds retain this data and the NZ courts approved the extradition, It in itself would lead to an unfair trial.

The courts have a duty of care to ensure that anyone subject to an extradition receives a fair trial. something that can not be guarenteed while the feds retain this data.

It also justifies the view that an applicant that shows such contempt for the NZ court is highly unlikely to repect the rights of the defendent if turned over to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rapnel (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 10:11am

la la
La la la la la-wly-pop.

Suck it. Lick it. Bite it. But do not, under any circumstances, abide by it. √

Best cricket match EV-ER
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oliveira, 2 Aug 2012 @ 5:53am

Really
Really, they are always sitting on his own tail dirty shit and pointing out the mistakes of others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corby (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 7:43am

If the appeal by the Crown Court regarding the illegality of the warrants, searches and the cloning of the hard drives and taking cloning to the US is lost and the cloning data is not returned back from the US then the court should dismiss the extradition case on the grounds that the US has refused to comply with the court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2012 @ 9:00am
  
  Re:
  What are you talking about? If the US wins on appeal, the lower court's decision is overturned, has no standing and means the US is in full compliance.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2012 @ 1:48am

Re: For shame.
This is great reading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yono, 2 Jan 2015 @ 2:02pm

this
Really who in there right mind is going to give the slighted crap.About a Nz Goerment of tranny love butt humping poo pushes.That allow there own country to be sold to China and say nothing.John Keys the leader of sodimy.And how to leave your own counrty ucked.But hey they can lie,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]