DailyDirt: Getting An Online Education...
US Uses Special 301 To Bully Ukraine, Likely Violating WTO

NZ Supreme Court Will Review Kim Dotcom's Extradition Case

Legal Issues

from the not-over-yet dept

Thu, May 16th 2013 7:58pm — Mike Masnick
Back in March, we noted that while a district court had ordered the US to hand over the evidence it was planning to use against Kim Dotcom, an appeals court had overturned that ruling, and said that the evidence wasn't needed for the extradition fight. Dotcom immediately appealed to New Zealand's Supreme Court, who has now said that it will review that ruling as well, so this case will continue to drag on for some time.
Hide this

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, evidence, extradition, fbi, kim dotcom, new zealand, supreme court
Companies: megaupload

63 Comments

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

Reader Comments

The First Word

“
makes no difference what you think of Dotcom, he should be allowed to know what he is charged with and what evidence there is against him. he is entitled to a lawyer and entitled to put up a defense. no one else here would want to be in the position of being accused of something, then told you are not going to court, you are not being allowed a lawyer, you are not allowed to say anything, you are not allowed to defend yourself, you are just going to jail. how can anyone here actually believe that it is perfectly ok to send someone to jail just because he is accused of doing something that someone doesn't like? it's even worse when the something he is accused of is sharing or allowing the sharing of files of data. he didn't steal the plans for a new bomb. he didn't start a world war. he didn't melt the Ice Caps. he ran a web site that uses shared data files of, among other things, music and movies. regardless also of whether anyone thinks that is right or wrong, how can anyone, for one second, think that doing so should mean that the world's laws should be rewritten to such an extent that it is classed as the most heinous crime imaginable and deserves such harsh punishments, as to make the legal system a total mockery??
—Anonymous Coward
 ”

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2013 @ 8:00pm

    The damn hate bastards are learning they do not control the world and there are still some people left with integrity.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, 16 May 2013 @ 8:12pm

    Dotcom stole millions.

    Crime pays at least enough for delaying justice.

    Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
    http://techdirt.com/
    Where Mike sez: uploader + file host + links site + downloader = perfectly "legal" symbiotic piracy.
    16:12:19[r-145-1]

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      steell (profile), 16 May 2013 @ 8:31pm

      Re: Dotcom stole millions.

      Are you the Official Techdirt Troll?
      Or just a wannabe?

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2013 @ 3:30am

        Re: Re: Dotcom stole millions.

        She's got a girl-boner for Mike. I've seen her blog; she can't write worth a damn and comes off as a crazy cat lady, except it's hateful pro-maximalist rants instead of pictures of kitties.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2013 @ 4:54am

          Re: Re: Re: Dotcom stole millions.

          Please share with the rest of class. Her blog?

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2013 @ 5:15am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Dotcom stole millions.

            Ask and you shall receive. This is the kind of thing she comes out with over and over again because copyright is property and infringement is theft, or something.

            http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2012/06/richard-odwyer-must-be-extradicted-and-prosecut ed.html

            Through the comments of OOTB1 and look out for keywords such as "collectivist", "Google" and "Pirate," and you'll see it's her. She pops up on tech blogs in an effort to push back against the "eeeeevilllll" pirates and their pushback against her beloved maximalism.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Rikuo (profile), 17 May 2013 @ 9:07am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dotcom stole millions.

              Wow. Actually, not wow. What I saw there is pretty tame for the copyright trolls. Comparing links to a robber advertising empty homes (a robber who steals physical items while committing trespass, mind you) is par for the course for trolls. I love the amount of comments, all three of them. Somewhat surprising that one of them is a dissenter, rightly calling out the bullshit.
              I also love the second comment there, saying "I'm not convinced there *isn't* a crime he's committed in the UK". Wrong. If memory serves, O'Dwyer was either found not guilty at trial or the UK police investigated but didn't take him to trial (I can't remember which). Meaning, that he has not been declared a criminal! But when has that stopped the copyright cartels, they're all about sidestepping the courts and going for Punishment Upon Accusation.

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2013 @ 6:18pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dotcom stole millions.

              Dammit, I've wanted to forget that blog ever existed since the last time it was linked here. That place is where brain cells go to die tormented synaptic deaths.

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      JCHP, 16 May 2013 @ 8:36pm

      Re: Dotcom stole millions.

      I can sense the butthurt from aaaaaaaaaaall the way over here.

      Please, do carry on equating copyright infringements to theft, you're certainly going to go somewhere.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2013 @ 8:39pm

      Re: Dotcom stole millions.

      You and your creative accounting overlords would know best.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2013 @ 8:41pm

      Re: Dotcom stole millions.

      out_of_the_lube just hates it when due process is enforced.

      Maybe out_of_the_lube is really John Steele. That's why he wants less Prenda articles unlike other people with a brain.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2013 @ 9:31pm

      Re: Dotcom stole millions.

      Blue also stole millions (of brain cells).

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        DannyB (profile), 17 May 2013 @ 6:22am

        Re: Re: Dotcom stole millions.

        Actually he is the victim of such a theft. Or is it copyright infringement. I always get the two mixed up because they are so similar.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Wolfy, 17 May 2013 @ 3:06am

      Re: Dotcom stole millions.

      Perhaps you could back up your allegation with facts? Also since you cannot steal IP.. you can only INFRINGE, exactly what was stolen, and how?

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 17 May 2013 @ 3:30am

        Re: Re: Dotcom stole millions.

        It's even sillier than that if you think about it. Dotcom didn't personally infringe on anyone's copyright, he merely created a platform that others used to infringe (and many others used for perfectly legal activity).

        So, even if you bought into the bullshit that infringement = theft, Dotcom didn't steal anything. At most, he merely profited from the actions of others, over which he had no direct control.

        As with his idiotic attacks on Kickstarter for daring to make a profit from the service they provide (while not having a clue what that service actually is), ootb fails to even understand what he's attacking. He has no facts, just an obsessive need to attack this site.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Greevar (profile), 17 May 2013 @ 5:44am

      Re: Dotcom stole millions.

      You want to talk about stealing? How about the fact that the content corporations have repeatedly stolen our culture from us all? How about the fact that they've stolen our freedom of speech and expression so they can have monopoly control over speech? No OOTB, the "content creators" are the real thieves and criminals.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2013 @ 7:25am

      Re: Dotcom stole millions.

      Provide evidence to your claim or shut the fuck up.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2013 @ 8:47pm

    I'd be surprised if the Court didn't elect to simply flush the toilet. ridding NZ of this particular piece of shit.

    I seem to recall the Fat Bastard volunteered to come to the US to stand trial if only money for his defense was released; and subsequently remember some $3 million being ordered released by a judge.

    I sure hope he doesn't play cards wirh other inmates when he does get to the States. He's not much on bluffing.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2013 @ 9:25pm

      Re:

      You probably shouldn't be deigned with a reply, given your gratuitous ad hominen attacks and clear lack of knowledge about the case, but for the benefit of other readers, the funds released were for his defence *in New Zealand* - the DoJ protested this strongly and has called the release of funds for legal defence 'outrageous'. In the US, the DoJ has done everything to prevent MU from exercising a constitutional right to adequate defence, including writing to law firms to get them off the case for alleged 'conflict of interest'

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 16 May 2013 @ 9:55pm

      Re:

      I'd be surprised if the Court didn't elect to simply flush the toilet. ridding NZ of this particular piece of shit.


      You'd be amazed at how well liked he appears to be in New Zealand.

      I seem to recall the Fat Bastard volunteered to come to the US to stand trial if only money for his defense was released; and subsequently remember some $3 million being ordered released by a judge.

      You remember entirely incorrectly. The DOJ did not release his funds. Certain funds were released *in New Zealand* and only for the NZ side of the case. His offer involved his US defense. In fact, the order releasing the funds specifically said he could not pay his US lawyers with it.

      I sure hope he doesn't play cards wirh other inmates when he does get to the States. He's not much on bluffing.


      What bluff? You made a false statement.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2013 @ 10:52pm

      Re:

      The Department of Justice has turned an unlikable shit into an anti-Hollywood hero.

      Think on that for a minute.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 16 May 2013 @ 10:53pm

      Re:

      11 comments on this thread, most of them the usual lies and impotent attacks from the local trolls and people telling them how they're wrong. Don't you guys get tired of this?

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 16 May 2013 @ 8:58pm

    I wonder if the decision had anything to do with them trying to save face after being caught spying not only on Dotcom but other citizens in violation of the law.

    If your breaking more laws than the people your pursing, doesn't that make you the bad guys?

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 17 May 2013 @ 9:42am

      Re:

      If your breaking more laws than the people your pursing, doesn't that make you the bad guys?


      If you're involved in law enforcement or the judicial system, breaking any laws at all makes you a bad guy.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2013 @ 11:35pm

    It's a regular occurrence, more often than not providing humor. The exact opposite of what they are attempting to do. It's very obvious that these trolls aren't here just on their behalf.

    They very rarely actually have anything worth while to talk of. Never any real facts pertaining the the topic at hand. Rarely read the articles, beyond the headline, nor the comments other than to pick a spot to come in on.

    They are however getting more numerous, meaning that Mike is actually making headway and it worries the vested interests into paying for more inadequate trolls to divert the topic discussion.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), 17 May 2013 @ 12:07am

    Turn unlikable men into martyrs

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Zakida Paul (profile), 17 May 2013 @ 12:12am

      Re: Turn unlikable men into martyrs

      Dammit, I wanted to add that this is what the US do best.

      Dotcom is not a very likable man but by going after him the way US Justice did, they have made him an anti copyright/anti Hollywood folk hero.

      Before the Megaupload take down, not many people would have known who he was; now, you would find it difficult to find anyone who doesn't know who he is. US Justice backed up by Hollywood did this. They also turned public opinion in his favour with the aggressive and, it seems, illegal way they treated him.

      They do the same with suspected terrorists and yet they never learn.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Rikuo (profile), 17 May 2013 @ 9:56am

        Re: Re: Turn unlikable men into martyrs

        "Before the Megaupload take down, not many people would have known who he was;"

        Only too true. I had been using Megaupload for a couple of years before the fiasco of his arrest, with paid accounts. However, I hadn't heard of Kim Dotcom. I didn't know or care who ran the company. Now I do.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    horse with no name, 17 May 2013 @ 1:47am

    Too bad for Him

    What doesn't make sense here is that, even if Kim does win, he just becomes a prisoner of New Zealand. The arrest warrant from the US will still stand, and as soon as he sets foot anywhere with an extradition treaty with the US, he will get bagged, gagged, and tagged with a one way ticket to the US.

    Moreover, all of this weaseling in NZ can't help Kim when it comes to facing the US courts. Clearly, he wants to do everything under his power to try to avoid having to face the courts in the US. That would suggest that he feels like he would lose there big time, and that it might cost him years of his life and possibly all the money he has made on the backs of others.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2013 @ 1:51am

    makes no difference what you think of Dotcom, he should be allowed to know what he is charged with and what evidence there is against him. he is entitled to a lawyer and entitled to put up a defense. no one else here would want to be in the position of being accused of something, then told you are not going to court, you are not being allowed a lawyer, you are not allowed to say anything, you are not allowed to defend yourself, you are just going to jail. how can anyone here actually believe that it is perfectly ok to send someone to jail just because he is accused of doing something that someone doesn't like? it's even worse when the something he is accused of is sharing or allowing the sharing of files of data. he didn't steal the plans for a new bomb. he didn't start a world war. he didn't melt the Ice Caps. he ran a web site that uses shared data files of, among other things, music and movies. regardless also of whether anyone thinks that is right or wrong, how can anyone, for one second, think that doing so should mean that the world's laws should be rewritten to such an extent that it is classed as the most heinous crime imaginable and deserves such harsh punishments, as to make the legal system a total mockery??

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Zakida Paul (profile), 17 May 2013 @ 3:11am

      Re:

      "makes no difference what you think of Dotcom, he should be allowed to know what he is charged with and what evidence there is against him."

      Amen. There is a case here in Northern Ireland at the moment where a man is being held without charge and without being told why he is being held. There is a public campaign under way to either have him released or to have charges brought against him so that he can have his day on court. The Secretary of State to NI is resisting so the case is about to go to the ECHR but he should not have to do that. This is internment, plain and simple. We had it in the 70s, it did not work then and it will not work now.

      It is not just the US who has no regard for justice, the UK also has no regard for justice.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2013 @ 6:00am

        Re: Re:

        to #25

        you are so right there! and the main reason for that is the fear that governments have about the people finding ut exactly what the fuckers are up to, how they are lining their own pockets at the expense of those they are supposed to represent and how they are screwing the people. i am of the opinion still that the reason the governments are letting the entertainment industries do what they want, in fact aid them do what they want is because while they are getting more and more surveillance laws brought it, that benefit the governments as well, it's the industries that are taking all the flack!!

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        horse with no name, 17 May 2013 @ 6:29am

        Re: Re:

        There is a public campaign under way to either have him released or to have charges brought against him so that he can have his day on court.

        How hard is this to explain? There are charges in the US. Kim Dotcom is not behind held in jail, he is out on bond. What is pending in New Zealand is extradition to the US, not a specific criminal case under NZ law.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Tiernoc, 17 May 2013 @ 9:29am

          Re: Re: Re:

          You should really read the comments you're replying to. The man Zakida Paul was referring to was a man in NORTHERN IRELAND, NOT Kim Dotcom.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2013 @ 6:49pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Trolls don't usually read. Stupidity and ignorance are more acceptable if they're willful.

            ...Actually, no it isn't, but some people gotta dream.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Wolfy, 17 May 2013 @ 3:11am

      Re:

      Does anyone else remember when "Sharing mean't caring"? Fucking Republican (and the odd democrat) assholes.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Zakida Paul (profile), 17 May 2013 @ 5:08am

        Re: Re:

        Remember it? That's how I was raised. Do the politicians and entertainment industry not realise how difficult it is to break the habits you developed so early in your life?

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2013 @ 6:28am

        Re: Re:

        No, screw entitled assholes. That's the long and short of it.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      horse with no name, 17 May 2013 @ 6:27am

      Re:

      makes no difference what you think of Dotcom, he should be allowed to know what he is charged with and what evidence there is against him. he is entitled to a lawyer and entitled to put up a defense.

      You are correct, and he gets all of that IN THE USA. Extradition doesn't mean try the case in New Zealand, which is what the original biased judge was trying to do. Rather, it requires a very light proof that there are charges and a basic case against him. He does not get to try the evidence in NZ, call witnesses, and be judges in a NZ court.

      Remember, extradition doesn't equate to guilt.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2013 @ 7:32am

        Re: Re:

        Tell that to all the people in Gitmo.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 17 May 2013 @ 7:43am

        Re: Re:

        Umm, no, it requires the US to show that they even have a case against him, and in particular one dealing with a crime big enough to extradite him over, and as their 'evidence' to date has been composed pretty much entirely of 'Trust us, we totally have a case, we just won't provide any evidence of it', NZ is completely justified in not just handing him over, especially as the USG conduct so far suggest he would get anything but a fair trial if tried in the US.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        John Fenderson (profile), 17 May 2013 @ 9:47am

        Re: Re:

        Remember, extradition doesn't equate to guilt.


        But it could equate to a guilty verdict (regardless of actual guilt) when you're being extradited to a nation where a fair and just trial is impossible. Such as the US, if you're Dotcom.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          horse with no name, 18 May 2013 @ 1:48am

          Re: Re: Re:

          If you think he isn't going to get a fair trial, I think we need to all hang it up. The US justice system has more outs and more appeal levels than almost any court system on the planet, and is generally stocked with decent judges. Further, unless something really significant is going on, cases are open, recorded, and sometimes even broadcast live.

          If Kim can't get some semblance of a fair trial, then society as a whole is done. It's sad that your entire justification for hoping a criminal can hide in another country is because you think your own legal system is so broken that letting walk is better.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            G Thompson (profile), 18 May 2013 @ 3:37am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            as more outs and more appeal levels than almost any court system on the planet

            Interestingly the court systems where There are better and more appeal levels and work more with procedural fairness (what the US Systems DOES NOT HAVE) are the New Zealand and Australian ones... Based off the English system... Canada isn't far behind those two either.. the UK sadly has become more US like in its judicial processes.

            Kim would NEVER have a fair trial in the US court systems, and the notion of a fair trial nowadays with anything to do with high profile criminal or civil cases in the US is ONLY when it suits the USG's purposes. Your (the US's) societal system is crumbling already, you're just too blinkered and close to understand what you have lost over the last 30yrs

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        G Thompson (profile), 18 May 2013 @ 3:32am

        Re: Re:

        Remember, extradition doesn't equate to guilt.

        Correct, his guilt has already retrospectively been decided beforehand by your Grand Jury (called a Star Chamber everywhere else). The extradition is just to allow the GJ process to get to do what it does best, convict everyone and their ham sandwich based on third party unreliable unauthentic hearsay and rhetoric

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    geofftate, 17 May 2013 @ 7:54am

    Tbh, I haven't really seen any stories of more traffic on the Mega site in terms of traffic just Dotcom's usual legal woes. All bark, no bite

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2013 @ 12:19pm

    You'd think some of our pro-hollywood commentors were "in" on the DoJ raid the way they take offense to any mention of the on-going fiasco that was created.

    I thought greedy people only got miffed when they lost money or don't get what they paid for... oh, wait.... nevermind. Derp!

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]


DailyDirt: Getting An Online Education...
US Uses Special 301 To Bully Ukraine, Likely Violating WTO
Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

Friday

19:39 Important Announcement: Techdirt Is Migrating To A New Platform (0)
More arrow

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

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