New Zealand Supreme Court Says DOJ Doesn't Have To Provide Its Evidence In Megaupload Extradition Case
from the blind-justice dept
Despite two earlier rulings that the US Justice Department needed to provide Kim Dotcom and others involved in Megaupload with the actual evidence being used against them for the extradition trial, an appeals court overturned those rulings and now the New Zealand Supreme Court has agreed in rejecting the request. While the chief judge dissented, the majority found that the extradition treaty does not require the country that has filed the charges against the individuals to provide the information and that the New Zealand courts have no real authority to order the US DOJ to provide the evidence. It does seem rather ridiculous that someone can be sent halfway around the world to face criminal charges without first being able to see the evidence against them, but that's apparently the law in New Zealand. They might want to fix that.Either way, the actual extradition trial was recently pushed back until July (it had been scheduled to start in a few weeks). Seems quite bizarre that they're only just getting to the trial over extradition nearly two and a half years after Megaupload was seized and shut down. The judicial process isn't exactly known for its speed, which is kind of crazy when you realize how quickly (and with such flimsy evidence) DOJ and New Zealand officials acted to arrest Kim Dotcom and his colleagues.
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The Cardassian approach to justice is radically different then that favoured by Federation worlds. Cardassians have absolute faith in their investigators, and maintain that only the guilty are ever arrested and brought to trial.
On Cardassia Prime a trial is intended only to demonstrate how the offender’s guilt was determined. Thus the purpose of the trial is not to establish facts – these are already known, and cannot be disputed – but to provide an educational experience for the populace, so trials are broadcast throughout Cardassia."
"The offender is not allowed to introduce any new evidence whatsoever. Under the Cardassian judicial system, no evidence can be submitted once the verdict has been reached, and the always happens before the trial begins.
During the trial, the Archon calls a number of witnesses who provide evidence of the offender’s guilt. The standards of proof required are not high, and unsubstantiated claims and hearsay are admissible forms of evidence."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Except they can't fix it they think that doing so would be an embarrassment to their country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems quite bizarre that they're only just getting to the trial over extradition nearly two and a half years after Megaupload was seized and shut down.
This may have something to do with the fat fuck resisting extradition. He could have gotten on a plane to the southern district of VA years ago.
Nice to know he'll be coming for an extended stay soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[i]I don't know why you're surprised that NZ doesn't feel obliged to try the case before fulfilling its extradition treaty obligation.[/i]
They have to try it anyway, what they said isn't he doesn't get a trial, what happened is they said he can't see the evidence against him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No I wouldn't. But neither would I be moaning about it being unresolved for 2.5 years. Every day in NZ is a day not in an American penitentiary. Not a place a soft, rich, chubby white boy will likely be comfortable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
that's some hypocritical God complex you have there!
Actually maybe I should press criminal charges on Dotcoms behalf of you calling him a "Fat Fuck" which under NZ and Aust law can be classified as a criminal act (harassment, hate crime, etc). Could be interesting... you would probably win at the extradition attempt (seeing as the US allows no citizen to be extradited whatsoever) but good luck EVER leaving the USA for another country.
What??? you think the above is unreasonable and I haven't got enough evidence in context to convict you... Sorry I do, I'm just not prepared to show you and will convict you in absentia instead.. so sad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps you should ask someone else to read what I wrote and explain it to you.
Actually maybe I should press criminal charges on Dotcoms behalf of you calling him a "Fat Fuck" which under NZ and Aust law can be classified as a criminal act (harassment, hate crime, etc).
Go ahead, but you are talking out of your ass. It is not a criminal offense nor are you able to "press criminal charges on Doncoms behalf..."
Could be interesting... you would probably win at the extradition attempt (seeing as the US allows no citizen to be extradited whatsoever) but good luck EVER leaving the USA for another country.
Again, you amply make shit up. The US does allow its citizens to be extradite
From Mcnabbassociates.com: "A United States citizen is likely to assume that he cannot be arrested and sent away to stand trial in a foreign court. This is simply not so. United States citizenship does not bar extradition by the United States. Between ten and twenty percent of persons extradited to foreign countries are United States nationals. For them, such treasured birthrights as trial by jury, confrontation of accusers, and compulsory process may evaporate"
So I get that you are desperate to defend your hero, but do you really need to stoop to outright fabrications to do so? Pretty pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But the other country still has to present proof before the US will allow it.
Interesting how you left that out, boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FYI, the extraditing country needs to show probable cause, not proof. You and the rest of the Kim Dotcom Fan Club seem to think the infringement trial needs to take place in NZ before he can be extradited. As is with most of what you think- you're wrong. Thanks for playing though!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hypocrisy at its finest from the USA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Harassment and 'hate crime' IS an indictable offense under AU/NZ laws, it's also able to be actioned by anyone who complains to appropriate authority who charge on behalf of that victim (whether the victim allows them or not). AS for myself personally able to push for and/or actually write out charge sheets in regards to specific offenses that I have upon balance knowledge of you performing might surprise you. Then again you don't know me either (and I don't explain everything I do in open forums either).
As for the extradition of US citizens your laws require for that to happen that the laws are the same within both the USA and the jurisdiction wanting extradition, that the evidence (which must be presented in full to a US court) would allow committal/indictment proceedings to commence within the USA, that the USA constitution has overriding effect on all judgements, procedures, etc used in the other jurisdiction. So basically exactly the OPPOSITE of what the DoJ requires other countries to do.
There is NO reciprocity nor comity in regards to USA citizens being extradite compared to other jurisdictions citizens being extradited to the USA.
The ONLY fabrication here is you both confabulating and obfuscating the actual reality that is occurring in this matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
why am I not surprised
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's sort of globalizing justice to the lowest common denominator. Let's see whether Nigeria can ask the U.S.A. for the extradition of Rush Limbaugh with a similar rationale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 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:
So what you're saying is that you think this decision will increase the likelihood of extradition, which is the same as admitting you think the evidence the defence wanted to see will show extradition should be refused. And you wonder why people think the justice system is broken...
Besides, if I had your ability to predict the future with such accuracy, I'd be buying lottery tickets instead of trolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes I think the decision increases the likelihood of extradition. I don't think NZ courts have an obligation to try his US infringement case in order to decide whether to extradite him.
No, I don't wonder why people think that about the justice system. I do wonder why people think it is OK to take the creative output of others and refit from it without paying the right holders for his work.
Besides, if I had your ability to predict the future with such accuracy, I'd be buying lottery tickets instead of trolling.
Stevie Wonder can see what's going to happen. It seems just you and the other Dotcom fanboys trying to wish away his accountability for his crimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And no, his US infringement case hasn't been tried in NZ or anywhere else. Swing and a miss... strike three.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I can only hope, for your sake, that you are never accused of any crime. You won't get any sympathy, and your heroes will have already established precedents that unpopular or inconvenient rights don't exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I can only hope, for your sake, that you are never accused of any crime. You won't get any sympathy, and your heroes will have already established precedents that unpopular or inconvenient rights don't exist.
What rights have been violated? Because you like and support the guy doesn't mean his rights are violated just because he gets an adverse ruling. Being a smarmy piracy apologists says volumes about your character as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
All of this without showing any evidence.
Nice form of justice you have there!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Umm, how about the fact that he is a foreign national who ran a foreign company from a foreign country, but yet he was arrested and had his property seized for allegedly violating United States law.
Did I miss when it was declared that every country's laws now also apply to every other country? I guess that means all the gay men in the US will have to be sent to the middle east to be executed, right? And the entire staff of Playboy as well as all the models are probably in line for public floggings in counties like Malaysia.
Or is it only US law that applies around the world? How can Britain get away with having 18 as the legal drinking age when the US drinking age is 21? They're breaking US law! All those people need to be extradited to the US to face criminal charges! Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He never set foot in the U.S. after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh look, the slow kid is at it again. What does this^ have to do with this>
He never set foot in the U.S. after all.
Perhaps not, but the dumb bastard leased servers in the southern district of VA. That means the US can exercise jurisdiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Lets find it shall we..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Since you don't seem to understand our legal system- let me inform you that you will need to contact a prosecutor regarding the prosecution of a criminal matter. But first better check and see if stupidity is a crime in NY. I'd hate to see you walk into a trap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Thank you for your well-wishes. I'll bet Dotcom would have appreciated hearing this from you several years back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hahahaha..... another Fat Bastard fanboy crying bitter tears. Sorry, your friend the corpulent grifter is going to have to explain how he earned tens of millions using willful blindness as a business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't suppose you have a shred of proof of this slander?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
but when it comes to Dotcom, you've already convicted him, you don't care he doesn't get to see the evidence against him or of him having to defend himself in a country he's not a citizen of, you don't care that the DOJ willingly let evidence that could have helped him be destroyed.
Double standards, much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
but when it comes to Dotcom, you've already convicted him, you don't care he doesn't get to see the evidence against him or of him having to defend himself in a country he's not a citizen of, you don't care that the DOJ willingly let evidence that could have helped him be destroyed.
Double standards, much?
At least there are news accounts and his own statements. Plus I actually visited his website. There is ZERO evidence of bribery of DOJ officials by anyone whatsoever. Just the fantasies of freeloaders and piracy apologists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is this tacit admission from you that you are in some way affiliated with the MPAA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. Are in your twenties.
2. Have no education past high school.
3. Are a grocery store clerk who fears being displaced by self-checkout.
4. Have never been laid.
5. Spending an inordinate amount of time playing games on the internet.
Is this a tacit admission that you're a loser?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well done. The personal attack is the last gasp effort of those who have lost in the game of debate.
As for the points themselves...they're true (except for 3, I'm currently studying and 5, I actually rarely play games nowadays, but hey) and so what? What does that change about my arguments to you?
Does the fact that I currently don't have a magic piece of paper from a school somehow mean I am unable to debate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And while you're at it, try this on for size.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 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:
And since they have not been proven they are NOT true and fall instead under allegations and/or imputations of criminal activity (moral turpitude if you will) and are therefore defamation per se and absolutely defamatory due to this. Just because a court might come to that conclusion (or not) in a future date does not make them truth just because you think so and would not be a retrospective truth either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh the naivety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i just about fell off my chair
haha NO EVIDENCE EH?
don;t care if the guys past shows him to be the worst human being on earth....we have laws to prevent 1500's church lynchings...
[ 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 ]
Really?
There is only one person to blame for that, and it's Kim Dotcom (and the legal underlings working for him). He has been fighting extradition tooth and nail and trying his best to tie the NZ legal system in knots to look for a sneaky way out of facing justice.
What is key here is that the highest court in the land has pretty much dealt a death blow to his whole attempt to get the whole of the case tried in NZ, where justice might be ever so much more kind to him. The intent of his legal actions against extradition were clear from the get go, and the NZ supreme court has told him it's a no go.
The case drags only because of Kim, plain and simple. If he wants to see the evidence against him, he only has to present himself in the court of law where he is charged, not in a safe haven half a world away. He could have turned himself over for extradition up front and saved himself 2 and a half years, instead he's been dragging his feet and fighting all the way.
Good on the NZ Supreme Court for shutting down his nonsense, now it's time for the extradition court to send him packing to the US to face up for his (alleged) crimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, really
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really?
Fixed that for you.
The US conducted illegal raids on his property and servers in NZ, based on false claims from a corrupt business group, and *Dotcom* is the one trying to avoid justice?
I sincerely hope you're joking, as I'd hate to think anyone would support the wrongdoings that have been made to pull Dotcom in front of a court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Really?
The US didn't conduct any raid in NZ. NZ police did so. The only thing that qualifies as being illegal in those raids was basically some paperwork errors, mostly it seems because they don't do many of these in NZ.
The false claims is pretty much crap, anyone and everyone on the internet knew that Mega was full of pirated material, and it's clear from the information out there already that not only did Kim appear to know about it, he also appears to have structured his companies and sold memberships to his file hosting service based on those facts.
His attempt to avoid justice is simple: drag the case out of the US, try to fight it in NZ on a point by point word by work basis, dissecting the full evidence of the case in NZ and dragging it out as long as possible, repeatedly asking for constitutional rulings and attempting to get stuff thrown out in NZ to make the case in the US go away or be diminished. His strategy has come to an end, he faces pretty much a summary extraction hearing this summer, and he will be on his way to the US to face trial, if he doesn't end up holed up in the Peruvian embassy claiming to be a political prisoner.
He tried to delay, he got his way for a while, and now his strategy has failed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Really?
This isn't clear at all. Can you elaborate and provide evidence?
"he will be on his way to the US to face trial"
No, he won't get a real trial. He'll get a kangaroo court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And really, you'd think that after this long they'd have come up with better insults than just constantly referring to his weight...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Groaker on Mar 21st, 2014 @ 5:59am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Interesting how this comment was hidden earlier and now, here it is. I guess TD only hides comments it doesn't like. Glad there's no censorship here though.
The hypocrisy oozes from every pore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
MIKE, Y U NO SHARE YOUR BELIEFS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I guess you really can't stand it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So would you feel better if the principals of Rapidshare got the same treatment? I'm guessing you'd be here moaning about them too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So you're saying that if I said G Thompson is a heroin dealer, that constitutes defamation per seabsent a conviction for heroin trafficking? What if there had been a prior conviction but at the time it was said, G Thompson wasn't engaged in trafficking. What if there was a trafficking conviction after the statement was made.
Does there not need to be a court ruling on the question of whether someone actually has been defamed?
Methinks you are talking out of your uninformed ass..... again. It is truly painful watching how fucking stupid you are. Oops...... have you just been defamed per se in that strange world you live in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why Spy?
It is astonishing how well blackmail works where all other forms of diplomacy and bribery fail.
One has to admit it. The NSA global surveillance programs have paid for themselves a million times over already.
Hardly anyone dares stand up against any US demands now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]