US Court Rules That Kim Dotcom Is A 'Fugitive' And Thus DOJ Can Take His Money
from the um. dept
In the long, convoluted and complex legal battles facing Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom, there was some bizarre stuff that happened late last year. As you may recall, early on, the US government seized basically all of his stuff and money. Dotcom has made efforts to get some of it returned, as it's tough to fight the most powerful government in the world when it's holding onto all of your money. Keep in mind from our previous discussions on asset seizure and forfeiture, the government can basically seize whatever it wants, just by claiming it was somehow related to a crime, but the seizure is only a temporary process. If the government wants to keep it, it then needs to go through a separate process known as civil asset forfeiture, which is effectively the government suing the assets. Back in July, the US government moved to forfeit everything it had seized from Dotcom in a new lawsuit with the catchy name USA v. All Assets Listed In Attachment A, And All Interest, Benefits, And Assets Traceable Thereto. As you may have guessed, Attachment A [pdf] is basically all of Kim Dotcom's money and posessions.Back in November, the DOJ argued that it should get to keep all of Kim Dotcom's money and stuff because he's a "fugitive", which is a bizarre and ridiculous way to portray Kim Dotcom, who has been going through a long and protracted legal process over his potential extradition from New Zealand (though he's offered to come to the US willingly if the government lets him mount a real defense by releasing his money). Dotcom's lawyers told the court that it's ridiculous to call him a fugitive, but it appears that Judge Liam O'Grady didn't buy it.
In a ruling [pdf] that was just posted a little while ago, O'Grady sided with the government, and gave the DOJ all of Dotcom's things. You can read the full reasoning here and it seems to take on some troubling logic. Dotcom's lawyers pointed out, as many of us have, that there is no secondary copyright infringement under criminal law, but the judge insists that there's enough to show "conspiracy to commit copyright infringement." But the reasoning here is bizarre. Part of it is the fact that Megaupload did remove links to infringing content from its top 100 downloads list. To me, that seems like evidence of the company being a good actor in the space, and not trying to serve up more infringing downloads. To Judge O'Grady and the DOJ, it's somehow evidence of a conspiracy. No joke.
The government has alleged that the conspirators knew that these files were infringing copyrights, as evidenced by their exclusion of infringing files from the "Top 100" list. The "Top 100" list purported to list the most frequently downloaded files on Megaupload.... According to the government, an accurate list would have consisted almost entirely of infringing content, so the claimants "carefully curated" the list to make the site look more legitimate.... Additionally, the claimants regularly told copyright holders, including many U.S.-based organizations, that they would remove infringing content, when in actuality they only removed particular links to the files.... The actual infringing files remained on the Mega-controlled servers and could be accessed from other links.As for that latter part, there are tons of perfectly legitimate reasons to only remove the links and not the underlying files. If Megaupload was doing deduping, then some version of the same file could be perfectly legitimate. Let's take an example: say that you and I have an MP3 of a Katy Perry song. I upload it to Megaupload to keep as a backup. You upload it to distribute to the world. Megaupload dedupes it, and just has the file stored one time. Your link could be potentially infringing if you distribute unauthorized copies, whereas my copy may be a legitimate personal backup. Given that, Megaupload should only delete the links that are called out as infringing, rather than the underlying files, which -- depending on their use -- may or may not be infringing. But the court just takes the DOJ's version and says "good enough for me."
The court also has no problem with the fact that most of the assets aren't in the US, noting that since some of the "conspiracy" took place in the US, that's good enough. It more or less brushes off the concerns raised by Dotcom and the other defendants that this appears to violate existing treaties between New Zealand and the US -- basically saying that because Dotcom refuses to come to the US, it's not "punitive." Huh? On top of that, the judge says that taking all of Dotcom's assets shouldn't interfere with the legal process in New Zealand, because the New Zealand courts could (yeah right) reject the DOJ's request after this ruling to hand over Dotcom's assets.
Then we get to the whole "fugitive" bit. Judge O'Grady notes that the statute does allow him to call anyone who "declines to enter" the United States a fugitive, and argues that Dotcom fits that description. Furthermore, he actually argues that Dotcom's offer to the DOJ to come willingly to the US if the money is freed for his defense actually works against Dotcom, and gives weight to the fugitive claim:
As demonstrated, Dotcom need not have previously visited the United States in order to meet the prerequisites of § 2466. The statute is satisfied where the government shows that the claimant is on notice of the criminal charges against him and refuses to "enter or reenter" the country with the intent to avoid criminal prosecution. Because the court assesses intent under the totality of the circumstances, it is certainly relevant that Dotcom has never been to the United States and that he has lived in New Zealand since 2011, where he resides with his family. This tends to show that he has other reasons for remaining in New Zealand besides avoiding criminal prosecution. However, the existence of other motivations does not preclude a finding that he also has a specific intent to avoid criminal prosecution. Dotcom's statements, made publicly and conveyed by his attorneys to the government, indicate that he is only willing to face prosecution in this country on his own terms. See Technodyne, 753 F.3d at 386 (2d Cir. 2014) ("The district court was easily entitled to view those [requests for bail], evincing the [claimants'] desire to face prosecution only on their own terms, as a hallmark indicator that at least one reason the [claimants] declined to return in the absence of an opportunity for bail was to avoid prosecution"). Dotcom has indicated through his statements that he wishes to defend against the government's criminal charges and litigate his rights in the forfeiture action. If it is truly his intent to do so, then he may submit to the jurisdiction of the United States.In short, damned if you do, damned if you don't. This is the justice system, ladies and gentlemen. The DOJ gets to seize and keep all your money, and merely asking for access to it to fight to show your innocence is used as a reason to allow the DOJ to keep it. So he comes to the US and has to fight criminal charges without his own money, or he stays in New Zealand and the government uses it as an excuse to keep all the money. How is any of this even remotely fair? Where is the "due process" in totally handicapping Dotcom from presenting a defense?
Again, it is entirely possible that Dotcom and the others broke the law -- though the case certainly does look pretty weak to me. But what's really astounding is how far the DOJ appears to want to go to make it absolutely impossible for Dotcom to present a full defense of his case.
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: asset forfeiture, conspiracy, copyright, copyright infringement, criminal copyright infringement, doj, fugitive, kim dotcom
Companies: megaupload
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
glad thats over
Since this should be a civil matter, not a criminal one, can Kim not just litigate from afar?
on another note, if I leave the city/state/country after any other police department confiscates my stuff, even if they haven't charged ME with anything, they can say I am a fugitive now too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: glad thats over
The ones that paid Megaupload to legitimately store backups and distribute their own content, some of whom have been trying to battle in court to get access to their own files that were seized by the US government? Or is this a case where only a handful of major corporations get a look in, if anyone does?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: glad thats over
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a load of shit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Imagining laws make them real.
Gee, still can't figure out why people have lost faith in the legal system in this country.
Show them video of a cop shooting someone who is cuffed, no wrongdoing.
Make claims not supported by actual law, OMG TAKE ALL THE THINGS!
Remember back when you were innocent until proven guilty, and they actually have to prove it not just say it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
2) Imagining laws make them real
... and
3) looking at a picture means you were actually there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PEOPLE THAT MAKE MOVIES!
This is the real piracy folks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The U.S. may be rich, but a fat rabid dog is still a rabid dog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crazy stuff
How's that sound?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hells bells!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hells bells!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hells bells!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hells bells!
The people left without goods are then herded into ghettos where they can try siphoning off of petty crime and droppings from their masters' tables.
It's called "urbanization" and a lot of other names.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hells bells!
bombs get dropped on cities in the worst cases
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hells bells!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hells bells!
Revelation 16:8-9New King James Version (NKJV)
Fourth Bowl: Men Are Scorched
"Then the fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and power was given to him to scorch men with fire. 9 And men were scorched with great heat, and they blasphemed the name of God who has power over these plagues; and they did not repent and give Him glory."
AMEN!
[ 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 ]
Does this smack of Howard Hughes?
Still, the Kim Dotcom case was one of the first ones to show that our police really are only hired guns for whoever pays for them (in this case Hollywood money), rather than being directed by, oh, like the letter of the law or the safety of the people or something.
The DoJ is a mob-style syndicate, and has no more ethical standing or moral high ground than such an organization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just...don't know what to say.
I've never been more disappointed with anything in my life as I am in my disappointment for the culmination of evil this country and all of its leadership, justice system and law enforcement in it right now have done.
As a veteran (USAR), I'm ashamed to have had anything to do with our government. Thank you for your service? No, I'm sorry, I was up against the wrong enemy.
The Internet is a global place and as I deal with people all around the world, I feel actual shame when I inform others that I am a citizen of the United States.
These are not feelings we Americans should have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You, i'd share a meal with
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's also "normal"
Maybe the need to resist government, to avoid invoking (or provoking) the police will be the thing that reunites our communities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"...if wrong, to be set right."
But it can happen anywhere. And even the UK who has taken more of a own-our-errors attitude with their bloody and brutal history have still sunken into a frightful surveillance and censorship state. And they have Orwell saying I told you so! from the grave.
The best thing we can do is to fix it and get past it. Fixing it is going to be hard. But remembering it is going to be even harder. Many parts of the US have an attitude that ideology is more important than accuracy when teaching history to our children.
Maybe a thorough and brutal watering of the Tree of Liberty will be enough to change their minds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "...if wrong, to be set right."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Descriptive, not prescriptive.
When it comes to the human species learning why we don't do certain things (e.g. give absolute despotic dictatorial powers to a charismatic psychopath), I have little faith in the human animal to take such lessons to heart without a magnificent human disaster to remind us.
But in this era, I have to say that even that kind of sacrifice may be pointless, given that the US already has its own privileged caste of freikorps above the law. It also has defined its own untermenschen among the impoverished, minorities, and any other non-mainstream subsect. And the elite and their indoctrinated are certainly asking a Jewish Question, namely which of the undesirables are most objectionable, and how to get rid of them.
And Israel has shown not one bit of compassion or empathy for other peoples oppressed by another with access to a powerful military. They seem to understand that anyone who is not them can be determined to be unpersons and cluster-bombed into a neolithic existence.
[ 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: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(To be clear, I do not wish any such injustice against TechDirt, Kim Dotcom, or any one else. Rather it infuriates me to no end that the injustice of the Dotcom case we're watching could happen at all to anybody in the world.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Our current Federal government can be equated to the old Soviet regime. Unaccountable police, oppressive and punitive legal system, massive gulag prison complex, secretive oligarchs holding all power. It's bad folks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They know the populace isn't going to rise up en masse and take over the government, so it's not like people having guns changes anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Um...
As you know, putting police in camouflage is about as useful as dressing your ninjas like kabuki. You want law officers to be clearly visible and distinguishable, not able to blend into the background.
There were few to no guns involved on the protestors' side in Ferguson, and yet they were regarded by the containment force as if one toke of pot was all that was necessary for a black man to Hulk out and bend tanks in half. Those police officers were terrified of the Ferguson civilians despite that they were pathetically armed.
So no justification is needed. I'm still waiting for the NYPD commissioner to explain why he thinks he needs emplaced machine guns to police his crowds from demonstrators. There aren't many guns in New York City.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Um...
While the strength of adversaries gets highly exaggerated, when no enemies exist at all, they must be created in their imagination.
The lawyers in the US "justice" system seem to take on a similar "kill or be killed" mentality. Instead of pursuing an honest prosecution, they use every dirty trick in the book in their attempt to win at all costs. The Dotcom case is a prime example of this vicious "killer instinct" that masquerades as justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Um...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Um...
I'm not sure if I can agree with this. The blatantly obvious difference between camouflage police and kabuki ninjas is just how freakishly cool the kabuki ninjas would be!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It helps to get around and see things.
Americans actually still find those things shocking even if our police sometimes escalate to that level.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It helps to get around and see things.
US cops usually keep their infantry weapons in their cars until needed. But do police in any European country keep fleets of MRAPs or .50BMG rifles?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So you think that if people were disarmed your government would have no reason to spy, torture and militarize to compensate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You change this at the ballot box, not with bullets. We need the numbers so you need to spread the word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kim Dotcom is lucky that the arsonist that burned down Judge Liam O'Grady's house (did they ever catch that guy, BTW?) did it a few weeks before the big MegaRaid. Because otherwise it must be tough dealing with a judge who might assume the arson was probably connected to a person on trial in his court, and of course Dotcom has been the judge's highest profile defendant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sweet! This means no more of this "we can't criminally prosecute anybody, it'd be too hard" nonsense, DOJ can just clean out the rats nests of conspirators at Bank of America, HSBC, JP Morgan-Chase. I can't wait to read tomorrow's papers, . . .
--
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why would they do that? It would be like the Mafia closing down its insurance business.
You can't just rely on asset forfeiture from stealing from the populace. Have you never heard of crop rotation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fugitive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fugitive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporate Sovereignty is needed
(Before I get shot down, can I at least get one or two clicks for funny comment?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Corporate Sovereignty is needed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Corporate Sovereignty is needed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Disturbing Trend
If you look around you will probably find lots of other examples of cases where the non-doj side in court cases are being placed at an unfair disadvantage by state and federal DOJs in the US. Civil asset forfeiture cases in general, for example. Or all those torture or NSA surveillance cases in which the federal government has attempted tp prevent what could constitute evidence of government wrongdoing being brought into the public eye on the ground that they need to remain state secrets for the good of the country.
This particular case is merely one variant in a disturbing American trend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Disturbing Trend
I DO gather that civil forfeiture is beginning to turn into a hot issue among the people, along with a number of other things. There are a LOT of things the law enforcement parts of our government have been getting away with under the radar until recently that have all been boiling to the surface of late, and it seems likely that things are about to get very ugly very fast if it doesn't look to the general public as if things are being corrected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A Disturbing Trend
To those pulling the strings behind this:
You can lie to everyone including yourself but the truth wants to be free, no matter how crooked it reveals you to be.
History will have access to all of those pesky records you arranged to exist also. Good luck with keeping a non evil reputation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A Disturbing Trend
A lot of decisions are based on an informed belief system in where there is lack of sufficient evidence.
Having evidence to prove your innocence has never stopped the courts or the DOJ from blocking you from entering it.
A lot of evidence is based on eye-witness testimony, something that is difficult to translate to a computer.
And of course the morality of some crimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A Disturbing Trend
Even if it's 100% accurate, it's still punishing people based on the corrupted laws, such as Copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corruption at it's finest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you need any more indication that the 'trial' he would get should he wind up in the US would be nothing but a pre-determined one, this would certainly be a prime example. They've already determined that he's guilty, now it's just a matter of twisting the law until it does what they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Such as Red Mass?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But I don't believe he is guilty of anything here.
But guess what guys, the same media companies that are attacking him are keeping this 100% out of the MSM, so most people have no idea that this is even going on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure dotcom kept them, but they were not his idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sigh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sigh...
Except that you can't pay for an account now because U.S. politicians put pressure on the payment processors to stop doing business with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sigh...
1. Go to mega.co.nz
2. Go to Pro and Buy Now
3. Choose hosting.co.uk
4. Make an account and choose bitcoin
5. Pay the account with bitcoin
It's a little bit more ($13 instead of $9.99), but at least it seems to have worked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sigh...
Yeah, if you can figure out how to use BitCoin in the first place. Every single "tutorial" I've looked at glosses over the details and only talks about it in abstract terms. Installing "wallets", "mining". Where's the tutorial where it tells you step by step how to set it up, put money into it using a normal payment method and then use it to pay for something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh...
Nowhere, because that's not how it works. You don't "put money" into bitcoins. You either mine them (create bitcoins by using your computer to solve algorthms) or buy them from an exchange. Either way, you put the resulting bitcoins into your wallet and use that to spend them.
There's plenty of guides (e.g. https://bitcoin.org/en/getting-started), but it sounds like you've either completely misunderstood the concept or been looking at technical mining guides rather than simple guides on how to use them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sigh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sigh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh...
Interesting to note that, when I post via Tor, "held for moderation" happens. So, *anonymous* posting is fine as long as your *actual* IP address can be recorded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it makes any difference...
TechDirt has been really lenient regarding my postings, especially for ones I've regretted later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh...
What you just described is actually a system designed to let moderators have a life at the weekend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh...
Probably not. I'm registered, but I get comments held for moderation every so often. Being registered doesn't seem to affect that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
obviously they haven't got a case! what is even worse is how the US courts are aiding in this complete 'please Hollywood and the entertainment industries'. without any money, he is at best, going to have to rely on a 'court appointed lawyer' and we can all surmise how that person will be threatened as to how to conduct him/her self and what consequences will be if the orders are not followed.
the studios and the DoJ have concocted a complete fantasy over Dotcom and what he was doing and will stop at nothing to get him into a US court. you can now bet that his extradition will follow pretty quickly, having no money to pay for defense even in NZ. this is disgraceful behavior by the USA court system and it's security forces. removing his money is one thing, preventing him from being able to defend himself is a whole new ball game. it comes hot on the heels of the latest company of Dotcom's being removed after a US government official threatened payment services and credit card operators. disgusting! how could anyone trust the US courts to be 'JUST'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, if the DoJ was not still afraid of some amounts of justice seeping out from courts, they'd not need the "plea deal" blackmail to get their bidding but could just rely on the court to deliver the prescribed verdict.
So the DoJ still has to work in order to arrive at injust outcomes and cannot rely on the courts alone.
Of course, the plea deal blackmail business also requires the defendant not to trust in the court for justice. Depending on social standing, that's a reasonably safe bet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This was a corporate arrest, no victim no crime.......profit is not a person, ahhhhh i get it......NEITHER IS A FUCKING COMPANY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I request clarification:
Since then, determining that he wasn't a flight risk, he was released from custody by a New Zealand judge, on bail.
And so far, as I understand, Kim Dotcom has abided by all of the bail conditions imposed on him.
Now, if this US Judge O'Grady is ruling that Kim Dotcom is a fugitive, despite his being arrested, processed, and released on bail (the conditions of which have not been violated) by the New Zealand police and judicary,
does he rule that by extension, the US does not recognize the current government of New Zealand, and its judical decisions, as legitimate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I request clarification:
*bingo*
we have a winner ! ! !
um, except, it ain't just NZ, it is EVERYONE ELSE, EVERY OTHER COUNTRY whose sovereignty, laws, boundaries, and LIVES just happen to disturb Empire in the slightest...
of course, should it suit their purposes, Empire will argue equally vehemently the opposite tomorrow, and certainly aver that these types of (il)legalistic shenanigans -of course!- don't apply to ourselves...
i know some people (in fact, i work with them) who *think* they are some kind of reasonable human beans, who are abject authoritarians, who refuse to actually observe, reason, and come to their own conclusions based on archaic stupid things called 'principles', 'fairness', and 'ethics' ... they reflexively side with WHATEVER 'their' gummint (the fools) says, and want to ELIMINATE people like me who do not knuckle under the weight of Empire...
let me make this clear: i would like to get rid of (by any means necessary) the .1% who perpetrate this horrific charade; but, i do not want to eliminate the authoritarian dupes (i'd like to educate them, but -if you read up on authoritarians- they are NOT amenable to reason); but they WOULD lynch me tomorrow if they could, AND SEE THAT AS BEING HEROIC, NOT MONSTROUS... they see themselves as eliminating 'savages' and 'traitors', NOT humans...
they are quislings to the constitution, they are about as UNamerican as you can get, but they will NEVER see that; and WILL string you up righteously, all the while hiding behind the flag... never realizing THEY are what is wrong with amerika, THEY are unpatriotic and have abandoned the constitution, reason and equity in their sham patriotism...
i pity them, they hate me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I request clarification:
- Captain Jean-Luc Picard, "The Drumhead"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I request clarification:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I request clarification:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is an entirely separate case. It's not part of the same case.
Also, pretty sure the other cases have basically all been put on hold until the extradition process is through, so not sure what else there is to rule on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How about not taking people's stuff when they haven't even been found guilty yet?
I am so completely sick of this obvious 4th Amendment violation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Executive AND Judicial Malfeasance
Now, now, don't underplay the collusion of "hizzonner." We have two branches of gumint sinnin' 'gainst The Constitution here.
Time to thin the herd of these culls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So indeed: U S A! U S A! U S A!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It seems like this is nothing less than a pissing contest except one of them is drunk and pissing on everyone including themselves...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Child porn does not affect Hollywood's bottom line all that much. It's not like if you pull the child porn, people will watch "Bambi" instead. You'd probably have to make gay porn illegal to make a difference. And gay-bashing is not currently in the hip space.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not. This is exactly on point.
The companies pushing for ISDS are thinking of situations such as Venezuela's nationalization of the oil fields. But this is the same situation.
Well, not exactly. Venezuela had a much more defensible process. A clear law was passed years in advance that the production facilities would revert to government control at the oil field lease termination. The courts supported the clear wording of the law. The law wasn't especially just or wise, but the legal process was followed without twisting the law into a pretzel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google..
Assume most of the stuff linked to is on government controlled locations and accounts? bait?
Won't catch the clever, but will easily identify the stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google..
Works for finding people to blackmail as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So when
1) Go to the United States and get assraped by Hollywood's bought and paid for judiciary
2) Get the GOP to repeat what they did to Sony on all of the major Hollywood studios. Only this time they follow through with taking the money, take their cut and give Kim the rest.
[ 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 ]
the us now rules the world,
they could seize assets,in the uk,eu etc ,
they can seize all the assets,money from
all the teens in russia ,europe,
who ever downloaded a few mp3 songs from a non legit source,
or cant prove all my files ,media are legit,
take all my money,
i,ll have nothing left to defend myself.
or pay a lawyer or even fly to america.
the mafia would love to do this.
HOW can he be a fugitive ?
he never was a us citizen,
he never appeared in a us court,
what happened to the principal,
everyone is innocent until they are proven guilty in a usa court.
the laws around file sharing , fair use ,etc are different in different countrys.
SO can we take it if i do something in say holland thats legal in dutch law ,
i could still be prosecuted in a us court ,
cos some big american company doesnt like me .
we all have great faith in the usa justice system,
the system that threatened a usa citizen with 35 years
in jail ,
for downloading 1000,s of public domain scientific research files from mit .university .
there are many things in the eu that would be classified
as maybe a copyright infringement in the usa .
this is about the worst legal judgement i,ve seen ,
since corporations in the usa were given the status of people .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greece's Finacial Solution
Simply accuse executives of US companies of crimes, notify banks to freeze all their assets and those of the company, start extradition proceedings, hold mock trial on assets, inform banks to turn over the assets, profit.
If US trys to argue against this, present as evidence the US agrees with this because of this case. In matter of fact they agree so strongly they think it is more important then treaties.
Someone is trying to be cute with legal manuevering, they should be reminded that when you get cute, you get bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Greece's Finacial Solution
Perhaps they even give the US full oversight and control of all their laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Greece's Finacial Solution
happens to a lot of people in positions of foreign power that oppose Us interests lately
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NEXT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NEXT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I certainly hope the outrage in response to case isn't limited to TechDirt.
The Cyberlocker market never recovered, and this screams of government conspiracy to destroy a man. And Jurist O'Grady is either in on it or just plain stupid.
But stupid or corrupt, this whole case seems to be a clear marker that the DoJ is broken. Every child-rapist or bank-robber or rampage killer or terrorist in prison is now a political prisoner of the US, given the DoJ is clearly incapable of delineating right from wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I certainly hope the outrage in response to case isn't limited to TechDirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The order of events.
There was the time that cops busted someone for picking up and posting info on a beta iPhone. That was also a conspicuous interest by Law Enforcement in what was unlikely to be an actual crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Special Prosecutor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need another Stop-SOPA level uprising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We need another Stop-SOPA level uprising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We need another Stop-SOPA level uprising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We need another Stop-SOPA level uprising.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/marvinammori/2015/02/25/ten-reasons-the-net-neutrality-victory-is-b igger-than-the-sopa-win/
....and that was despite quite a lot of powerful media mouthpieces saying things should go the other way and at the same time while those same mouthpieces were trying to *force* the issue to *go* the other way. That said, I also see a number of different ongoing efforts to, for instance, pull the wind out of the sails of the NSA mass-surveilance system by going state-by-state to outlaw various parts of it, among dealing with other government-overreach issues ( http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/ ), and there's a particular grass roots endeavor to bring about election finance reform ( http://www.wolf-pac.com/ ) so that giant corporate elements can no longer elbow their politicians and tell them "Go deal with THAT for us, or else!" And it sounds to me like people are starting to get up at arms about the country-wide problem that the events in Ferguson were a symptom of, where among other issues the police go in behaving like hung-ho military outfits and get innocent people killed. But it also sounds like people are waking up to the great harm brought about by civil forfeiture laws (police grabbing cash and high-value items from people because they THINK those might have been used in, or been payed for via, crime and then FORCE you to prove it WASN'T related to crime ("Oh look, drug money! Gimme!") even when they have no proof you committed a crime!), as well as other matters.
One of the most recent things that people are demanding action on is this matter here: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/28/chicago-protests-police-black-site-homan-square
So, yeah, I strongly suspect there's going to be some massive changes coming over the next year or two, coming from several different directions, despite the powers that be thinking everything will remain status quo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thou shalt not steal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The road to hell....
But it is all done for a "(*1)good cause" and so it is all deemed to be a part of the unavoidable cost of doing business.
(*1) - the eventual godhood of the 1% (god gold good)
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
craptastic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is chilling, and not just for Dotcom
1. Accuse them of a crime.
2. Seize all their assets.
3. Begin forfeiture proceedings against the money, and win because the target doesn't have any money to defend themselves.
4. Prosecute them and win, because they are the government and are not above straight-up perjury and the defendant has no money.
5. Lock them up for a long time.
6. ???
7. Profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is chilling, and not just for Dotcom
Just wait until it comes out they are openly assassinating people because they don't like them and not because they are a criminal or a terrorist or whatever.
To any rebuttals about the US government not killing off people that portray them in a bad light.
Awful lot of murder suicides happening lately to the most vocal of critics. As well as "the USA does not torture people, we condone torture" well, up until about several months ago when people found they were lying yet again to save face and hide their war crimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe it's why they call them fat-cats.
So, yeah, VIPs in the US now have the power and disposition of ancient Mayan gods, or felines among mice. If they take an interest in your affairs, they'll toy with you before breaking your neck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
accused = guilty
In cases like these the legal process is becoming just an act for the uninformed to hide what is happening. They will ensure the system is weighted against the accused that they will be found guilty regardless of the facts.
The question is as more people realise what is happening will the system become more just; or will they just skip to locking people up and taking their assets without the show trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
due process is for other people
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Note that the 'without due process of law' statement is not in fact followed by 'unless a corrupt, treasonous, thieving, corporate whore, bureaucrat decides otherwise.'
How inconvenient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a big era for constitutional exceptions.
Apparently we also like to find exceptions due to the Geneva convention as well, much to the chagrin of the international community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: due process is for other people
Why would that be inconvenient? The latter clause is always implied given an immature groveling timid complacent populace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm a fugitive
It's not that I did something illegal in the USA, but apparently that doesn't stop the DOJ from persecuting.
On a related note, the DOJ now presumably rounds up Jews for failure to turn themselves in by themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US Control
The main showdown will be Islam V Western Governments, with the citizens being the human fodder...!
uk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US Control
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's the same trick Israel uses to grab Palestinian land
After the war of 1967, the same law was enacted; since all of the occupied territories were in enemy hands in 1948, all residents there are considered absentees, and their land can be taken at will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]