Extradition Trial For Kim Dotcom Pushed Back Again
from the stalling,-stalling dept
It's not entirely clear why this is happening, but it appears that the hearings concerning Kim Dotcom's extradition have been postponed yet again (apparently for the 4th time). It mostly seems to have to do with this whole issue of getting access to the evidence against him, which the US has been fighting.His extradition hearing has already been delayed several times due to legal action relating to an illegal raid on his home and disclosure of evidence relating to his case.Either way, it seems like this case may drag on for quite a while.
A hearing in August has now been put off until April next year.
But a tentative date has been set for November, just in case a final ruling on whether his lawyers should have access to evidence, is quickly made.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: doj, evidence, extradition, fbi, kim dotcom, new zealand
Companies: megaupload
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Enough already
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Predictable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Predictable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Predictable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Predictable
His entire tactic appears to be to avoid justice for the real crime, and instead to play the extradition game for as long as he can keep that ball in the air. He is just avoiding justice, and that is not just at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Predictable
Last I checked, running a site like MegaUpload was not a crime. In fact, the 38 files DOJ keep holding up as examples of his guilt are the ones that they told MegaUpload not to mess with until further notice (they were related to NinjaVideo case) or get charged with tampering of evidence.
So... what was Dotcom guilty of again (Other than having an ego the size of the Sun)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Predictable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Predictable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Predictable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Predictable
No one's going to take you seriously on that definition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Predictable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Predictable
They get frustrated because others call for actual justice rather than the witch-hunt they truly desire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Predictable
I think that's the reason why they never address how disturbing it is that the government would bend over backwards for these corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Predictable
They should apply to EVERYBODY, including you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Predictable
HAHAHAHAHA
Hearing this come from someone who supports a corrupt government is pretty classic.
Keep living in your bubble, horse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Predictable
From where I sit, it looks like what he's doing is trying to avoid being tried in the kangaroo court that awaits him in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Predictable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Predictable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Predictable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Predictable
This is what you people actually believe. That personal liberty, rights, and even the laws of the country you're actually operating from should be trashed just because another country doesn't like what you're doing and fear for their corporations' profits. That government agents breaking their own rules at the behest of private corporations should be able to dictate where and how justice is served. That's scary.
Sorry, the rest of us respect jurisdiction, rule of law, the right to fair trial and due process. If at the end of this, Dotcom receives a fair trial and is found guilty, then so be it. But, he's going to exercise his rights in the meantime, and if it's the media circus aspect you dislike, well it's the **AAs and their lackeys who created it to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Predictable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Predictable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the 25 seconds of NSA outrage is OVER
Here we are right back to Kim Dotfagpig, and next standby for something on PRENDA !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the 25 seconds of NSA outrage is OVER
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the 25 seconds of NSA outrage is OVER
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the 25 seconds of NSA outrage is OVER
As Homer Simpson puts it so well.
"I would really love to want to care, but... you know".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: the 25 seconds of NSA outrage is OVER
So why are you commenting on articles about them? If a subject truly doesn't interest me, I skip over the article and move onto something that does. I certainly don't click and start attacking other people, and calling the subject of the articles stupid childish names.
Why do you do this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: the 25 seconds of NSA outrage is OVER
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: the 25 seconds of NSA outrage is OVER
But I suppose even simple acts of logic like this are beyond the mind of a jackass like you, who hates Fair Use in Australia and think you hold above average intelligence over most Australians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: the 25 seconds of NSA outrage is OVER
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the 25 seconds of NSA outrage is OVER
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How is it Mike both "supports copyright" and defends Kim Dotcom?
ACTUALLY, of course, those are sheerly words that attempt to support an underlying agenda. We all know that Clapper of the NSA is flat out lying. Now you kids can try to come up with some rationalization that covers Mike's contradictory positions on the other two points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How is it Mike both "supports copyright" and defends Kim Dotcom?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How is it Mike both "supports copyright" and defends Kim Dotcom?
And doesn't it strike you as odd that they all say "Yes, there is a smoking gun, it's got KDC's fingerprints all over it" And yet, THEY REFUSE TO SHOW IT TO US!!
Doesn't that strike you as odd?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How is it Mike both "supports copyright" and defends Kim Dotcom?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How is it Mike both "supports copyright" and defends Kim Dotcom?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How is it Mike both "supports copyright" and defends Kim Dotcom?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How is it Mike both "supports copyright" and defends Kim Dotcom?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How is it Mike both "supports copyright" and defends Kim Dotcom?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How is it Mike both "supports copyright" and defends Kim Dotcom?
I sincerely hope you're being sarcastic there, because in case you haven't realized, there is such a thing as a shade of grey. Copyright isn't a you-support-it-as-is or don't-at-all scenario, you can be like Mike and support the idea of copyright but be completely against what it's become today: the default tool that people grab onto when they want to censor others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How is it Mike both "supports copyright" and defends Kim Dotcom?
No, these guys don't realise that, which is why their arguments consistently fail. Everyone has to support copyright unquestioningly, or want to remove it completely - no middle ground. Everyone has to either be a 100% legal purchaser or a pirate - no middle ground. Everyone has to support the major labels unquestioningly or support illegal channels - no middle ground.
Actual nuanced arguments frustrate and confuse them - which is why half their posts devolve into childish namecalling or "why won't Mike state his position on something he's talked about for the last 10 years" despite having done just that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How is it Mike both "supports copyright" and defends Kim Dotcom?
It's like when you see various so-called Christian sects throwing around accusations of other sects following their man below for not being One True Christians...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How is it Mike both "supports copyright" and defends Kim Dotcom?
Supporting copyright doesn't preclude opposing terrorism instead of wanking over it like you do.
It's about what's right, which is pretty much the opposite of what you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How is it Mike both "supports copyright" and defends Kim Dotcom?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
troll paper
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: troll paper
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: troll paper
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: troll paper
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: troll paper
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: troll paper
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They have no serious logic, apparently no ability to back up what they want to claim with references, rarely read the article beyond the title, and have no conception of justice beyond the lynch mob mentality they espouse.
I agree with the poster that said the judge on this case in New Zealand should lay down the law that there will be no extradition until the US meets the demands put on it by the New Zealand justice department. That failure to do so timely would result in the end of the process of extradition.
The US DOJ has been the one holding up the extradition process by the illegal acts they have committed during the evidence presented to have SWAT teams no less create a raid. This is not to mention all the illegal activities that have been revealed to have happened in New Zealand.
Somehow our trolls conveniently don't want to talk about that. I wonder why not? Justice is supposed to be about what is just, not government witch hunts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]