NZ Supreme Court Will Review Kim Dotcom's Extradition Case
from the not-over-yet dept
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.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
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dotcom stole millions.
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 ]
Re: Dotcom stole millions.
Or just a wannabe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dotcom stole millions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dotcom stole millions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dotcom stole millions.
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dotcom stole millions.
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dotcom stole millions.
"DNSSEC that in fact no major companies have adopted now" [even though her article and comments were talking about CISPA in privacy concerns she switched to a rant about piracy]. Yeah, no major companies have DNSSEC. Except for, ya know, Comcast, one of the largest ISPs in the US.
http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2013/04/you-should-be-upset-that-cispa-didnt-pass-and- dont-gloat-it-will-be-back.html#comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dotcom stole millions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dotcom stole millions.
Please, do carry on equating copyright infringements to theft, you're certainly going to go somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dotcom stole millions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dotcom stole millions.
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 ]
Re: Dotcom stole millions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dotcom stole millions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dotcom stole millions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dotcom stole millions.
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 ]
Re: Dotcom stole millions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dotcom stole millions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 ]
Re:
Think on that for a minute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whac-a-mole with 10 kiloton nukes: Not so good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If your breaking more laws than the people your pursing, doesn't that make you the bad guys?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 ]
Turn unlikable men into martyrs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Turn unlikable men into martyrs
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 ]
Re: Re: Turn unlikable men into martyrs
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 ]
Too bad for Him
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 ]
Re: Too bad for Him
"Clearly, he wants to do everything under his power to try to avoid having to face the courts in the US"
He's trying to avoid a kangaroo court in a country that's already shown a willingness to break laws and procedures in order to get him, ignored any right to due process before shutting down his business and refuse to allow his defense access to the evidence they'd need to clear him? Of course he is, why would he think he'd get a fair trial?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too bad for Him
Through this entire mess the USG has shown over and over that it was and is willing to bend, break or create any law it needs to to railroad him to a guilty verdict, and only a great fool would walk into that situation willingly.
For just a few of the many examples, try reading some of the following articles:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120705/01494319582/fbi-continues-to-insist-theres-no -reason-kim-dotcom-to-be-able-to-see-evidence-against-him.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/ 20120710/17055819652/kim-dotcom-offers-to-come-to-us-if-doj-releases-funds-legal-defense.shtml
ht tp://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120815/23472720067/new-zealand-high-court-fbi-must-release-its-evid ence-against-kim-dotcom.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130114/20002521676/doj-responds- to-megauploads-accusations-misleading-court-misleading-court.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Too bad for Him
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could'a swore I already covered this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too bad for Him
> Kim when it comes to facing the US courts.
Ah, so you admit that the US court system is so corrupt that the outcome is determined even before trial? How forthright of you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too bad for Him
By the way - how much time have you spent your life in New Zealand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too bad for Him
Anywhere with an extradition treaty with the US, just like NZ. What makes you think things would happen any differently in another country. The US's case isn't going to suddenly change from laughably weak to extradition-worthy overnight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too bad for Him
Yeah, I went there....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Too bad for Him
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Too bad for Him
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 ]
Re: Re:
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 ]
Re: Re:
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 ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
...Actually, no it isn't, but some people gotta dream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 ]
Re: Re:
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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 ]