Kim Dotcom Seeks Millions From The New Zealand Government For Illegal Raid On His Home

from the maybe-acting-all-commando-wasn't-a-good-idea dept

Mon, Sep 16th 2013 7:30am — Mike Masnick

New Zealand's High Court has already ruled that parts of the raid on Kim Dotcom's house were illegal, and that's even without the fact that New Zealand's intelligence agency, the GCSB (the local version of the NSA) had illegally spied on Dotcom prior to the raid. Even law enforcement officials admit that the raid was over the top." In response, Dotcom has been trying to sue the New Zealand government. The government tried to block the lawsuit, but lost... twice.

While that lawsuit has been underway, the documents were only just revealed, showing that he, along with his Megaupload partners and Dotcom's wife, are asking for about $6 million NZ (about $5 million US) in damages for the raid and the spying. Either way, this particular case is scheduled to be heard just slightly before the resumption of Dotcom's case fighting extradition to the US, though I imagine that the results of this case could come into play in that legal fight as well.

167926452 Statement of Claim (PDF)167926452 Statement of Claim (Text)

167926451 Statement of Defence (PDF)167926451 Statement of Defence (Text)

Response to Claim (PDF)Response to Claim (Text)

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: gcsb, kim dotcom, lawsuit, new zealand

30 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

silverscarcat (profile), 16 Sep 2013 @ 5:36am

One thing to say...
Suck it, MPAA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2013 @ 8:25am
  
  Re: One thing to say...
  Hold your horses! Have you considered who's going to pay the bill for the incompetence/greed of the MPAA?
  
  You think it is going to be the MPAA? HA!
  
  The citizens of NZ are the ones that are going to get stuck with the bill. The MPAA just gets to laugh at the whole situation. And They. Don't. Care. And neither does Kim DoucheCom.
  
  The citizens of a country will pay for the failures of private entities and the eagerness of governments to please those entities...again...
  
  So, in a way, it sucks...but not in the way you'd prefer...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Designerfx (profile), 16 Sep 2013 @ 8:57am
    
    Re: Re: One thing to say...
    it's really all you can do in such a situation, since the government doesn't wish to be held accountable.
    
    One can simply hope that this incenses the public enough for them to demand change. I can say this though, the chances of any business even considering doing business in any country that's a part of the five eyes process are now nonexistent, for the most part.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Skeptical Cynic (profile), 16 Sep 2013 @ 9:12am
    
    Re: Re: One thing to say...
    I agree. But when the people that are governed by those that they elect those people bare the responsibility of those they elect.
    
    So pay up bitches. And then learn from those mistakes.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 16 Sep 2013 @ 6:05am

My first thought was that the amount is too low considering how much he lost with the illegal closure of Megaupload but then I realized it's just about the raid on his house. I wonder how much they would be able to seek if the closure is deemed illegal? Honestly this is what should happen now. And even/when it does the sad part will be that the NZ Govt will pay the bill, not the real thugs behind this legal harassment (the US Govt and the MAFIAA).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 16 Sep 2013 @ 10:59am
  
  Low amount might have another reason
  My first thought as to why the amount might be so low, relatively speaking, is to make it more likely the government will just pay up without too big of a fight.
  
  Because if they do that, they've basically admitted, publicly and in court that the raid was illegal, which makes any evidence from the raid inadmissible, making things just a titch problematic for the US's extradition case, as they'd not only be barred from using any evidence they got during the raid, they'll have been found to have been willing to use illegal means to get it, which is not the reputation you want to have when you're trying to convince a judge that the person you're trying to extradite will receive a 'fair and impartial trial'.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bergman (profile), 20 Sep 2013 @ 11:09am
    
    Re: Low amount might have another reason
    Except that's not what a settlement says.
    
    It's not unusual at all for a settlement to not include an admission of wrongdoing, instead making a statement of "we didn't do anything wrong but it's expensive to fight this so here's money now go away."
    
    If the objective is to get the government to admit they were wrong, going for a settlement usually has the opposite effect. To get that admission, you have to get an actual court judgment, not a settlement.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Skeptical Cynic (profile), 16 Sep 2013 @ 6:06am

DOTCOM for President!!
Just kidding!

I hope thought that he wins. Also DOTCOM is a dumb ass for asking for so little. If he was suing somebody in America he would be asking for 100-1000 times actual damage. So in his case asking for the paltry sum near actual cost and damages is just plain bad legal strategy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 16 Sep 2013 @ 6:08am
  
  Re: DOTCOM for President!!
  I thought so at first but if you think about it you are looking for damages caused by the raid itself only. And maybe in NZ it makes sense to ask for reasonable amounts?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PRMan, 16 Sep 2013 @ 10:24am
    
    Re: Re: DOTCOM for President!!
    They don't even have lawsuits over there for injury accidents. Get hurt? Go to the free health care. Nothing to sue over.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - James Burkhardt (profile), 16 Sep 2013 @ 12:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: DOTCOM for President!!
      Actually, you would still have concerns over temporary loss of income and permenant disability and outside injuries youd still have damage to personal property....The medical bills aren't the only thing sued over in a lawsuit over an accident.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Pragmatic, 17 Sep 2013 @ 3:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re: DOTCOM for President!!
      I baulked at first, thinking you were wrong, PRMan, but it seems you're right. Here's the rationale: http://www.nzlawyermagazine.co.nz/Archives/Issue66/F4/tabid/301/Default.aspx
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anderson, 16 Sep 2013 @ 2:12pm
    
    Re: Re: DOTCOM for President!!
    Indeed. The New Zealand legal system is set up so asking for far more than you've actually been damaged is generally a bad idea. You have to actually prove your damages to an extent. While it would look good in the headlines, seeking an excessive amount would not be a good idea since what Dotcom is actually after is a ruling in his favor.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 16 Sep 2013 @ 7:49am

$800,000 in physical damage to a property during the raid.

Nice job guys.

Unless you tipped over a giant crystal vase full of cocaine, you really need to "accidentally" damage a lot of items to rack up that tally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 16 Sep 2013 @ 7:59am
  
  Re:
  The attack on the innocent dumbwaiter fearing it was the secret door to his villainous lair where the single button he could press to erase all of the evidence was TOTALLY not over the top.
  
  Just like grabbing a maid and at gunpoint asking where the weapons of mass destruction were.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 16 Sep 2013 @ 8:04am
  
  Re:
  They could just be using RIAA maths. According to them, songs that could fit on a single CD are enough to sue someone for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Imagine if someone knocked an external hard drive full of songs to the floor during the raid!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2013 @ 7:51am

he should definitely win this case. he wasn't doing anything at the time to warrant the behaviour of the law enforcement officers on the day or afterwards. the NZ government should go on to recoup the money from the NSA and other USA security agencies. i read where all the charges are being denied, obviously but am trying to figure out how they can be denied. there is video footage as well as audio of the raid itself and what happened to try to hamper any investigation by sending off to the USA HDDs that had been ordered to stay in NZ and be made available to Dotcom's legal team. all the weaponry that was employed was a total scare tactic and completely unnecessary, even if he had been found guilty of the most heinous crime (according to Obama's funders, the entertainment industries) of 'file sharing'. it hardly bears any similarity to raiding people in the early hours who are suspected of ruining lives by dealing drugs!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2013 @ 7:57am
  
  Re:
  "It hardly bears any similarity to raiding people in the early hours and ruining their lives because they are suspected of dealing drugs!"
  
  ftfy
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2013 @ 8:08am
    
    Re: Re:
    The original comment was "it hardly bears any similarity to raiding people in the early hours who are suspected of ruining lives by dealing drugs!"
    
    and yours was "It hardly bears any similarity to raiding people in the early hours and ruining their lives because they are suspected of dealing drugs!"
    
    So, as a diff:
    < who are suspected of ruining lives by dealing drugs!
    > and ruining their lives because they are suspected of dealing drugs!
    
    No, you didn't fix it. You completely refactored it to change the meaning of the comment to suit your opinion.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2013 @ 8:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes the opinion that the war on drugs ruins more lives than drugs do. Good job on catching up whilst being as confrontational as possible.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Namel3ss (profile), 16 Sep 2013 @ 8:12am

I hope everyone noticed this...
This raid happened immediately after the internet blackout protest over SOPA. Obviously a tit-for-tat. The people responsible for this BS need to burn. In jail.

Intimidation much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2013 @ 8:21am
  
  Re: I hope everyone noticed this...
  Real Americans would never resort to such tactics! That's for filthy Commie Nazi scum!
  
  /s
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 16 Sep 2013 @ 8:50am

Yes, criminals have no shame. And pirates cheer it.
Besides that, IF this were paid, how many other NZ citizens could make similar claims? Safe bet it'll be denied on "been legalized" now, sovereign immunity, or some such.

@ "Suck it, MPAA!" -- It'll be citizens of NZ paying. Your comment shows only how irrational your mental images are.

Mega-grifter Kim Dotcom got millions by hosting infringed content. That's not even capitalism, that's THEFT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2013 @ 9:49am
  
  Re: Yes, criminals have no shame. And pirates cheer it.
  If by "criminals" you mean those who conducted the soon to be found illegal raid, then yes, I'd agree with you - those crooks have NO shame!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 16 Sep 2013 @ 10:15am
  
  Re: Yes, criminals have no shame. And pirates cheer it.
  All those defenses such as sovereign immunity, et.al have allready been tried by the NZ Govt and failed which is why the NZ High Court has allowed this case to proceed to this stage.
  
  NZ citizens like other citizens of the Commonwealth actually have the ability to sue their governmental agencies for damages if those actions have been deemed illegal/unlawful by the appropriate courts like in this case. Only the USA really bars its own citizens from anything like this. Other countries are actually freer it seems without having a bill of Rights etc.
  
  The only thing that might be in the NZ Govt's favour in this matter is if they can prove that the damages were de minimus. But that's not going to occur. They are basically being charged with nonfeasance and the damage amount asked for reflects that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 16 Sep 2013 @ 11:31am
  
  Re: Yes, criminals have no shame. And pirates cheer it.
  All I've heard from you are accusations based on thin air. Not a single spark of evidence to back them up. And the case is falling apart precisely because of that. The evidence the US Govt claims to have is not being disclosed and part was destroyed due to complete incompetence (or ill-will).
  
  Your babbles were entertaining for a while. Now you are just a broken record.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 16 Sep 2013 @ 2:26pm
  
  Re: Yes, criminals have no shame. And pirates cheer it.
  "Besides that, IF this were paid, how many other NZ citizens could make similar claims?"
  
  Not many, since completely unjustified, military-style raids are extremely rare in NZ.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2013 @ 5:49pm
  
  Re: Yes, criminals have no shame. And pirates cheer it.
  out_of_the_blue just hates it when due process is enforced.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2013 @ 8:59am

"Besides that, IF this were paid, how many other NZ citizens could make similar claims? Safe bet it'll be denied on "been legalized" now, sovereign immunity, or some such."

Anyone who have had an illegal warrant, illegal raid, illegal search and seizure of property would be entilted to make a claim just like Kim Dotcom has had happened to him. Kim Dotcom is entitled to compensation because of the ILLEGALITIES that has happend just because you don't like the idea of him being awarded compensation because you don't like his past actions.

Compensation will no doubt be paid out because of the ILLEGALITIES that has been proved to be illegal by the courts and that the Prime Minister has also came out and said that the raids etc. were illegal and have appolagised for it.

"Your comment shows only how irrational your mental images are."

You are in no postion to point and judge consdiering your comments are putdowns and ad homs etc. and in doing so you would be a hypocrit to make such comments with judging people yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2013 @ 6:21pm

It's too bad Mr. Dotcom can't sue to master minds behind the illegal raid. Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and that Key fellow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]