DOJ Hints At Additional Charges Against Kim Dotcom If He Launches Megabox

from the you-wouldn't-want-to-do-that,-now... dept

Thu, Oct 25th 2012 2:36pm — Mike Masnick

There have been a bunch of stories over the past month or so about how Kim Dotcom is supposedly getting ready to launch a new service called Megabox. We've purposely avoided such stories, mainly because they're pure hype and speculation for vaporware. If he actually launches something then perhaps there's a story there. Also, we're somewhat amazed (or possibly just amused) at Megaupload supporters who seem to already think that Megabox is an amazing idea, since the details reported about it certainly appear to be little different from garden variety malware, injecting ads into other sites. Either way, in a recent profile of Dotcom in Wired, he talks a little more about the new plans, suggesting that it was something to keep them busy while fighting the lawsuit.

That said, it appears that the Justice Department has seen the PR reports about the new vaporware and are effectively pre-warning Dotcom not to go forward with the plan.

A new filing from the DOJ in the US side of the lawsuit (embedded below), is really a response to Megaupload's recent request to have the charges against the company temporarily dismissed until such time as the individual defendants are extradited. As we've explained, this is mostly a procedural fight, over whether or not the company itself can be charged, despite not having a US presence. None of that directly impacts the individuals who have been charged, but certainly could impact the company's ability to launch a new business.

The DOJ filing mostly argues that there is no legal or practical reason to allow the case to be dismissed, even temporarily, as the individuals are still charged, and re-charging the company at a later date will just waste resources. It also argues that Dotcom's US-based lawyers are the real problem here, as they had offered to accept service of the lawsuit in exchange for some sort of deal early on (which the DOJ refused).

What's interesting about the filing is that, without directly addressing the new effort to launch Megabox or whatever Dotcom is calling the new thing, they appear to be warning him that doing so may lead to additional charges against him. The argument as it relates to the procedural question is that, in his push to be allowed to post bail in New Zealand, Dotcom clearly indicated that he would not and could not restart Megaupload or a similar business, because the government had so completely shut him down. As that relates to the procedural question, the DOJ is arguing that there can be no "harm" to the company Megaupload because Dotcom has already said he won't relaunch the company. So if he won't relaunch, what does it matter if the company is charged now or later?

But then the DOJ goes a little further. After it uses all those quotes of him promising not to relaunch anything while out on bail, the DOJ tosses the following into a footnote:

Defense Counsel’s claim that the corporate defendant can and should be allowed to operate undermines the sworn statements of Dotcom that he has no plans or ability to continue to operate or fund the businesses in the Indictment during pendency of the extradition process. If defendant Dotcom intentionally misled the court in New Zealand about his intentions and capabilities in order to obtain his release from pre-extradition confinement, it seems Defense Counsel’s representation might endanger Dotcom’s bail situation or even subject him to additional charges.

In other words, beyond this procedural question, the DOJ is hinting that if Dotcom launches something new, they may say he violated the conditions for getting bail.

The DOJ also uses this as an opportunity to (once again) try to block Megaupload from using its law firm, claiming that because the lawyers are arguing for the case against Megaupload to be dismissed, and this might lead Dotcom to launch something new, that there's a conflict of interest:

The issue raised by the claim of Defense Counsel is particularly awkward since defendant Dotcom is also their client. As the government has pointed out repeatedly, there are a number of conflicts in Defense Counsel’s representations of the various defendants in this matter, of which this is only the most recent example, that have yet to be reviewed by the Court

None of that actually makes much sense. Whether or not they have a legitimate claim for getting the case against Megaupload dismissed, that is a separate issue from whether or not Dotcom launches something new. While I'm guessing the procedural fight is a dead end, the fact that the DOJ is even using that to toss additional threats at Dotcom should he launch his new project shows that they'll leave no stone unturned in trying to hit back at Dotcom.

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: doj, kim dotcom, mega, megabox, threats
Companies: megaupload

61 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

DOJ & Carreon, 25 Oct 2012 @ 2:42pm

Dig deeper and deeper
F yeah double down and keep going. Imbeciles.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2012 @ 2:43pm

Re: Dig deeper and deeper
Yep. I want this to really blow up in their face.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kelly (profile), 25 Oct 2012 @ 2:45pm

Sheesh. Why doesn't the DoJ just go ahead and declare itself the governing body of everything and every place on Earth if they're going to pull stuff like this? Can Congress or the President smack them around and get them to stop doing stupid things like going after companies that don't have a US presence?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 25 Oct 2012 @ 2:48pm

I read this on Torrentfreak. I love this quote from there

"Among other things, the DoJ argues that Megaupload has not �suffered massive harm� as New Zealand�s court records show that Dotcom doesn�t intent to bring the site back online."

Megaupload has NOT suffered massive harm...

Guys, (especially trolls) get that through your heads. The US Department of Justice has destroyed the company Megaupload...and they have not suffered massive harm, all because DotCom doesn't want to bring back the site.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 25 Oct 2012 @ 2:53pm

Re:
yes, because destroying a company does not do massive harm to it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 25 Oct 2012 @ 2:56pm

Wow lol
DOJ: "Hey, if Kim Dotcom does that we're gonna make up more stuff!!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alana (profile), 25 Oct 2012 @ 3:03pm

average_bob and out_of_the_mind comments in 3, 2...

"BLARGHALBLARGA PIRACY SUPPORTER BLARGHLEBLARGAUH APOLOGIST BLAUGH I-DIDN'T-READ-THE-POST-I-THINK-YOU-SUPPORT-THIS-SO-I-WILL-ATTACK-BLAUUUUUUUUUUUUnhhnhnhnhnhnhnhngggg ggggghhhhhhhhhhhh..." (That last part was the brain aneurysm.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2012 @ 3:06pm

Re:
Least the last part is based in fact.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 25 Oct 2012 @ 3:12pm

So is Kim Dotcom a modern era mob boss?
So is Kim Dotcom a modern era mob boss?

The way that anything and everything is being used against him, even in the most tenuously grasping possibilities, makes me feel that this is more of a witch hunt than it is actually attempting to service the interests of the public.

From what I recall reading on techdirt earlier -some- dislike for the things he's done before is probably deserved, but thanks to this circus all I can see now is yet another persecuted martyr being attacked via proxy for evil forces of regressive causes ('big media').
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2012 @ 3:13pm

Re: Re:
The World Trade Center has not �suffered massive harm� as the US doesn�t intend to rebuild it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Divide by Zero (profile), 25 Oct 2012 @ 3:15pm

Hey, US DOJ: gtfo of my country, fer fooks sake. Seriously, sod off. But honestly, how desperate are they getting now? It was funny, now it's sad and starting to get disturbing, this huge boner they seem to have for Kim et al.

How do you Americans handle having them around every single day?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chosen Reject (profile), 25 Oct 2012 @ 3:17pm

Re:
You mean the president that stuffed the DOJ full of RIAA and MPAA lawyers?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 25 Oct 2012 @ 3:22pm

Re:
"How do you Americans handle having them around every single day?"

It doesn't take long to get used to having virtually no political power or control over how your society operates. You do what you can without painting a giant target on your forehead. That's about as much as you can do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 25 Oct 2012 @ 3:23pm

Shorter version for dolts:
"Defense Counsel�s claim that the corporate defendant can and should be allowed to operate undermines the sworn statements of Dotcom that he has no plans or ability to continue to operate or fund the businesses in the Indictment during pendency of the extradition process. If defendant Dotcom intentionally misled the court in New Zealand about his intentions and capabilities in order to obtain his release from pre-extradition confinement, it seems Defense Counsel�s representation might endanger Dotcom�s bail situation or even subject him to additional charges."

If he lied to get bailed that the biz is going to be dormant, then he may get into a heap more trouble.

What in the world is controversial about that, Mike? That's a statement of what a court might do in nearly ANY criminal case in those circumstances, not a threat to trump up charges.-- It's just that you have a huge bias so think you've found a shocking point. Geez.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 25 Oct 2012 @ 3:25pm

Re:
average_bob and out_of_the_mind comments in 3, 2...

LMAO! On the surface, I think the DOJ is correct: Dotcom launching a new iteration of the service that he's already being prosecuted for is stupidity at its finest. What kind of an idiot does that? I look forward to reading the DOJ's latest brief, and I'm thankful to Mike for posting it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 25 Oct 2012 @ 3:30pm

By the way, according to WSJ, was in the US:
Don't know why you guys keep saying that Megaupload wasn't in the US. Emphasis added:

"The indictment claims Megaupload took in more than $110 million over five years in membership fees and other payments via a PayPal account. It also leased capacity on more than 1,000 servers in North America and another 630 in the Netherlands."

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970204616504577171060611948408-lMy QjAxMTAyMDEwOTExNDkyWj.html

But I ain't followed it close, so you might correct me on the point. -- I mean on where the servers were, not just repeating that it didn't have a US address. It clearly was doing biz in the US, money transfers, advertising...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FuzzyDuck, 25 Oct 2012 @ 3:37pm

Re: Re: Re:
You win this round.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2012 @ 3:44pm

Re: Shorter version for dolts:
"If he lied to get bailed that the biz is going to be dormant, then he may get into a heap more trouble.

What in the world is controversial about that, Mike? That's a statement of what a court might do in nearly ANY criminal case in those circumstances, not a threat to trump up charges.-- It's just that you have a huge bias so think you've found a shocking point. Geez."

I guess the part you didn't pay attention to that you quoted flew over your head. So let me repeat it: "Defense Counsel�s claim that the corporate defendant can and should be allowed to operate undermines the sworn statements of Dotcom that he has no plans or ability to continue to operate or fund the businesses in the Indictment during pendency of the extradition process."

He's not going to relaunch Megaupload, the business at the center of the indictment. He's launching something entirely new and separate from Megaupload. The fact that it has "Mega" in it's name DOES NOT make it the same business. As such, assuming he does launch it, it is not the same business and therefore he has in no way lied to the court.

I guess in your haste to take a shot at Mike, due to YOUR huge bias, you may have overlooked that simple fact, which effectively is the same as telling the DOJ to get f*cked. Then again, much like you, in their haste to paint Dotcom in a bad light and not in a not so subtle manner threaten him, they may have also not realized that a business sharing a similar name to one in an indictment DOES NOT the same business make it. Much like you they can read but they can't comprehend.

Which just adds more hilarity to things and makes for delightful entertainment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chargone (profile), 25 Oct 2012 @ 3:44pm

Re:
i suppose catastrophic existence failure can be read as 'not massive harm' in the same way that one can make the claim 'i'm not going to hurt you, just kill you'... maybe. probably not though. i really just wanted an excuse to say 'catastrophic existence failure.' hehe.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2012 @ 3:49pm

Re: By the way, according to WSJ, was in the US:
Of course you don't follow it close. You make it clear on every single article you comment on that you never read the whole article through.

And yet, for some reason, you throw a tantrum and demand to be taken seriously.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chargone (profile), 25 Oct 2012 @ 4:04pm

Re: By the way, according to WSJ, was in the US:
the Hosting company is a US entity.
Mega Upload is Not.

in the same way that a Sugar plantation (as a random example) that exports to the US is, none the less, NOT a US business (unless owned by a US corporation and blah blah blah) and doesn't need to have an address or presence in the US (even if their produce does sit in a warehouse in the US prior to sale.)

the paypal thing is like trying to claim that every business in the world that accepts Visa or American Express or whatever is a US business.

upshot of all this? it's Not Bound By US Law (though the other entities it's dealing with may be)... in spite of which, mind, it was following said law Anyway, and BY said law was not a legitimate target for the things it is accused of, even if it HAD been a US business.

Megaupload, the corporation/business/Whatever has no presence in the USA. it owns nothing there, has no address there, pays no taxes there, and so on, and so forth.

I'm not a lawyer, but it's not that damn hard to understand.

to flip it around: if a US company rented server space in Europe (like, say, i dunno, MANY MMORPGS?), we'll go with the Neitherlands for lack of a better pick off the top of my head, but had No offices there, all it's physical products were Exported to the Netherlands from the US, etc, etc... and some random Russian mafia types (for example) were using it's chat function or e-mail or Whatever on that server to organize criminal activity, amongst the Thousands of users doing whatever legitimate function the thing was designed for, would YOU be ok with the Dutch government compleatly destroying said US company's ability to function Before any court case was even begun? would said US company fall under Dutch law? note it has No Presence in the Neitherlands (it's renting hosting space from a company that IS, that's it.) and the people (supposedly, as they haven't even been identified, let alone charged) breaking the law have NOTHING to do with the company. oh, right, and most of the things the US company is being charged with are either activity that Dutch law says is legal OR such nonsense as 'paying rent on that hardware you're using is money laundering' 'making money on your business's primary function is evidence that you are wilfully encouraging illegal activity for profit' and so on.

does that sound legit to you At All?

again, not a lawyer, but this is the sort of bullshit we're dealing with here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zos (profile), 25 Oct 2012 @ 4:05pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
agreed, +1 interwebz to that AC.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zos (profile), 25 Oct 2012 @ 4:07pm

Re: Re:
the kind who knows they decided to destroy his completely legal business, using underhanded and extralegal tactics. The kind who has the money, and the will, and the ability to fight them every step of the way, and force them to operate in the light for once.

They pissed off the wrong gigantic austrian hacker.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zos (profile), 25 Oct 2012 @ 4:09pm

Re: By the way, according to WSJ, was in the US:
they leased capacity on american servers, on the advice of their legal team, SPECIFICALLY so that DMCA safe harbors would apply.

because they were operating inside the law. Until the DOJ decided to treat them like a cartel boss, and ignore anything resembling due process, actual law, or anything but the industrys "we're telling you man, he's the devil"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DOJ, 25 Oct 2012 @ 4:10pm

We ARE the rulers of the world you know! If you do not like it then move somewhere else!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cosmicrat, 25 Oct 2012 @ 4:49pm

Its ironic
That such an obnoxious buffoon of an impresario as Dotcom actually demonstrates more integrity than scores of less controversial hosting companies (I mean the ones who are rolling over and deleting user pages at the barest allegation of infringement). Dotcom is standing up to the bullies, sure enough that he will prevail that he's launching a similar service even while under duress from no less than the DOJ.

We need more like him (only less obnoxious).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BentFranklin (profile), 25 Oct 2012 @ 5:54pm

Right, because Justice Department doesn't have any conflicts of interest, does it? I am starting to loathe Eric Holder even more than I did John Ashcroft, and that's saying a lot!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 25 Oct 2012 @ 7:58pm

Re:
It is not MegaUpload the courts should be concerned about, it is the citizens of their own country. How many months has it been since the dog that is the DOJ ate someones kids home work with the MegaUpload take down?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 25 Oct 2012 @ 8:01pm

Re:
'"BLARGHALBLARGA PIRACY SUPPORTER BLARGHLEBLARGAUH APOLOGIST BLAUGH I-DIDN'T-READ-THE-POST-I-THINK-YOU-SUPPORT-THIS-SO-I-WILL-ATTACK-BLAUUUUUUUUUUUUnhhnhnhnhnhnhnhngggg ggggghhhhhhhhhhhh..." '

Weird but I understood that better than and average_bob rant ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vincent Giannell, 25 Oct 2012 @ 8:37pm

Being threaten by additional charges won't stop Dotcom from launching Mega and Megabox.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2012 @ 8:54pm

Re:
Congress and the president are bought and paid for, if you want them to do anything you must pay more
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 25 Oct 2012 @ 9:01pm

Re: Shorter version for dolts:
Ok. Bail 101 for the dummies! (I'm looking at you ootb)

If as a condition of Bail there was a "shall operate no other business" then YES he might be in breach of bail. Though this condition is highly unlikely and extremely egregious and would be worded in such a way that could only be applied to MegaUpload and NOT other business's that 'might' be initiated.

* Sworn statements that are read in court in Bail proceedings are irrelevant no matter what the DoJ think. The ONLY way to be in breach of bail is via breaching the conditions of said bail, and unless part of the conditionals. ie: No breach. The only thing that could be slightly injurious is a sworn statement (under oath) if shown to be false 'at the time' could result in contempt - but HIGHLY unlikely in this case

* Breach of Bail is NOT an Offence and NOT chargeable.

*If a breach of bail is alleged, all it means is that the bailee is brought back before the court for the court to decide whether bail is shall still be granted, other conditions imposes, or refused bail and therefore sent back to gaol. The court decides NO ONE ELSE!

* The DOJ have absolutely NO standing in bail matters, the only people who have standing are the Prosecutors or the court itself of New Zealand.

--- end of lesson

without directly addressing the new effort to launch Megabox or whatever Dotcom is calling the new thing, they appear to be warning him that doing so may lead to additional charges against him.

For the DOJ to state he might of breached bail in another forum (ie: US court) then doctrine of laches might prevail against the DOJ and things like duress and tortuous interference can and should be actionable against them.

If they are speaking about additional charges that could, might, OMG we need to figure out how to get him more, be brought then this is without a doubt Duress and major interference by a sovereign power.

IMHO the DoJ are running scared and are being used more against trying to prove a conflict of 'not in best interest of client' by defendants counsel so that they can have them replaced (the DoJ's aim from the beginning) than anything else.. though this might bite them HARD in NZ now. Interference is not tolerated by courts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2012 @ 9:10pm

Re: Re:
"You mean the president that stuffed the DOJ full of RIAA and MPAA lawyers?"

You mean the RIAA and MPAA lawyers who were put there during the two-term Bush administration, don't you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chosen Reject (profile), 25 Oct 2012 @ 9:48pm

Re: Re: Re:
No, I mean the lawyers put there by Obama. Bush very well might have put a bunch there as well, but he's no longer President so I doubt the OP was asking for Bush to smack the DoJ down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wally (profile), 25 Oct 2012 @ 10:49pm

I think I see the problem the DOJ sees
Kim Dotcom's US Lawyers are being paid to do something that the DOJ seems to be getting paid for but isn't doing it...their job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 25 Oct 2012 @ 11:36pm

Re: Re:
I seem to recall a line about the American duty to stop tyranny...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2012 @ 11:40pm

Megabox FTW.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2012 @ 1:01am

I was wondering if the new Mega is launched in the name of his beautiful wife, Mona, would it still be illegal? Then Kim could takeover the business in his hands at a later time when there would be no threat.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2012 @ 1:42am

Re:
I guess there is nothing against the law for someone or some people to set up the Mega business for him and run it in there name until such a time that he could take over. As long as he is not mentioned on the setup doctuments or mentioned as a list member for the Mega company and it is run by someone else then he should be well clear of breaking any laws. When the Megaupload case comes to an end then he can take over the running of the new Mega company.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2012 @ 1:44am

Re: Re:
And destroying the whole of the US does not do any massive harm at all also.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2012 @ 1:44am

Re: Re:
I guess there is nothing against the law for someone or some people to set up the Mega business for him and run it in there name until such a time that he could take over. As long as he is not mentioned on the setup doctuments or mentioned as a list member for the Mega company and it is run by someone else then he should be well clear of breaking any laws. When the Megaupload case comes to an end then he can take over the running of the new Mega company.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NakkiNyan, 26 Oct 2012 @ 1:48am

For the twat who wrote the article and the twats who keep saying he is trying to relaunch Megaupload, no. Megabox is, accroding to Kim himself, a music streaming site for which he is providing some of his own self-produced music to start with.

And it is not the "so called Megabox" it is Megabox, read his own tweets and sites yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2012 @ 2:32am

Re: By the way, according to WSJ, was in the US:
Leased. Not owned. They don't own anything in the US.

What if you rented a game server in a country that then decided game servers were illegal. Would you expect to be extradited and imprisoned.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NakkiNyan, 26 Oct 2012 @ 3:16am

It still kills me that Kim is called a pirate when he gave media the keys to kill downloads themselves and complied with DMCA take-down notices yet Dropbox, RapidShare, MediaFire, ZippyShare, RapidGator, uploading, DataFileHost, Orion, SlingFile, LimeLinx, Upload.to and others don't do all of the same... hell some just blocked US IP addresses so media companies couldn't find the files.

DOJ is just dragging this out to make a spectacle of the whole mess so they can say they are working hard. They didn't even find the % of pirated material they expected to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2012 @ 3:27am

Re: Re:
Actually AJ megabox is nothing like megaupload bar sharing the first part of its name.

So he would not be 'launching a new iteration of the service' but starting a new independent project.

The guy has to be able to make money so he can pay to fight of the evil US DOJ.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2012 @ 3:28am

Re: So is Kim Dotcom a modern era mob boss?
Yes.

I think what the DOJ has in fact done is turn a huge arsehole in to a modern day hero.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 26 Oct 2012 @ 4:29am

Re: Re:
Also, since the service has not yet been found to be illegal or anything like that, theoretically he could do something like this. Of course, violating bail conditions is a totally separate issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gregg, 26 Oct 2012 @ 5:45am

3000+ years ago China built a big wall to keep out the Barbarians... I think the rest of the world should think to do the same, but build a great fire wall to keep the US out of the rest of the world. I'm sure we can convince most Americans that the wall if for their protection from illegal alien Blogging or fighting oversee's jobs for tech support....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 26 Oct 2012 @ 5:50am

Re: Re: Re:
Actually AJ megabox is nothing like megaupload bar sharing the first part of its name.

I'm not referring to Megabox. I'm talking about the "New Megaupload" called "Mega": http://torrentfreak.com/new-megaupload-will-deflect-copyright-liability-and-become-raid-proof-121018 /

Nice attempted deflection.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gorehound (profile), 26 Oct 2012 @ 5:55am

Re: Dig deeper and deeper
Department of Jerks lick Dog Butt clean !
[ link to this | view in thread ]
velocityrapture (profile), 26 Oct 2012 @ 6:32am

Deja Vu
It's just like the time a dump-truck flattened my car. I couldn't drive my flattened car afterwards, so if you think about it, there was no damage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2012 @ 6:33am

"intentionally misled the court in New Zealand"

The DOJ used that?

Aren't the only people to actually have been determined to have committed illegal acts relating to megaupload; those people and agencies on the side of the prosecution against Kim Dotcom?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2012 @ 6:35am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rapidshare...dropbox etc. The business model is not illegal, never has been, and there is nothing in the bail conditions preventing him from establishing a new business. Mind you, he maintains Megaupload was legal too, and until proven in court this is as valid a claim as that of the DoJ that it wasn't. However, he is explicitly forbidden from *re-launching* MU. Not from launching another cyberlocker. Just because you cannot get your head round the fact that cyber-lockers are legal, doesn't make it so (do you work for the DoJ? they seem to have a similar problem with logic..)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2012 @ 6:39am

Re:
just look up the latest case against the CIA whistleblower who's the *only* person found guilty over CIA torture - Eric Holder and Neil McBride behind that one, in case you need reasons to loathe him even more
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2012 @ 6:40am

Re:
well-known psychological principle: you always see your own faults in others. Or perhaps it's sheer arrogance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris-Mouse (profile), 26 Oct 2012 @ 6:44am

Re:
If you work at it a bit, you could convince the Americans to set up the wall themselves. That way, they pay for protecting the rest of the world from the USA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2012 @ 7:09am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who cares if it violates his bail conditions? If he launches "Mega," that'll be just more charges against him when he does face trial in the U.S. And the jury is going to LOVE the fact that he relaunched a similar operation. That will practically guarantee him the maximum sentence. So sure, he should definitely get right on launching "Mega." What a great idea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2012 @ 8:19am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As long as Dotcom does not have his name listed as a member of the company when it launches then he hasn't breeched his bail conditions. If the company is run by someone else then he isn't running the business. He could give instructions (friendly advice) to the person running the business but then when the Megaupload case is ended then get the Mega company transfered into his name. I would love to the see the look on the DOJ face when they find out that Dotcom is not listed as a member of the company and therefore there is no case for them to prove that he is running the new Mega business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2012 @ 10:09am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
charges have to be based in law...though the DoJ seems to be ignorant of this fact. As are you. Let's put it like this: in recent years there has been a worrying trend in which the DoJ likes to ignore existing laws when it comes to charging, but the law remains the law and will prevail in court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Penis, 26 Oct 2012 @ 2:12pm

AMERICA THE COUNTRY OF BIG BROTHER
Yeah go america... fuking Nazis...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2012 @ 2:22pm

so how is starting a new company with all new equipment the same as re-starting an old company that has been totally destroyed and the equipment used by it is unreachable? seems to me that the DoJ have spun so much bull shit, told so many lies, they have no clue now what lies they are saying, what the last lie was they said, when to stop lying and how to determine reality from what they are saying. talk about being desperate and boy, how it shows!! there must be a lot of arse holes twitching both in Hollywood and in the government!
[ link to this | view in thread ]