How The US Government Legally Stole Millions From Kim Dotcom
from the the-fun-of-asset-forfeiture dept
About a month ago we covered the basics of the lawsuit by which the US government was seeking to keep pretty much all of Kim Dotcom's assets, despite the fact that Dotcom himself hasn't been tried -- and, in fact, it hasn't even been determined if he can be extradited to the United States (a country he's never visited). This week, that case took another step, with the judge, Liam O'Grady, who had already ruled that Kim Dotcom could be considered a "fugitive," more or less finalizing the theft of Dotcom's assets by declaring a default judgment in favor of the US. This isn't the end of the process (not by a longshot), but it highlights just how the US government can use some ridiculous procedures to steal millions in assets from someone who hasn't been shown to be guilty of anything.As we discussed last time, the story of the raid on Kim Dotcom's rented home in New Zealand, the seizure of all of his cars, money, bank accounts, computers, servers, etc. is well known. That was part of a case for which Kim Dotcom was indicted (under what appears to be questionable legal reasoning -- but that's a separate issue). As has been widely reported, that case is still on hold while Dotcom fights extradition from New Zealand. The extradition fight will finally go to a New Zealand court later this summer. Once that's done, if Dotcom loses, he'll be sent to the US, where he'll face a criminal trial based on the indictment.
But this is actually separate from all of that. You see, when the US government grabbed or froze all of Dotcom's assets, they did so using an asset seizure procedure. Asset seizure is allowed in such cases, but the government then has to give that property back. What the government really wanted to do is keep all of Dotcom's tens of millions of dollars worth of assets -- and in order to do that it has to go through a separate process, known as civil asset forfeiture. It's technically a civil (not criminal) case, but (and here's the part that people find most confusing), it's not actually filed against Kim Dotcom at all, but rather against his stuff that the government already seized. Yes, it's technically an entirely separate lawsuit, that was only filed last summer (two and a half years after the government seized all of his stuff and shut down his company), entitled United States Of America v. All Assets Listed In Attachment A, And All Interest, Benefits, And Assets Traceable Thereto. And, as we noted last time, Attachment A is basically all of Kim Dotcom's stuff.
This whole process is known as an "in rem" proceeding -- meaning a lawsuit "against a thing" rather than against a person. And the "case" basically says all this stuff should be "forfeited" to the US government because it's the proceeds of some criminal activity. You would think that in order for such civil asset forfeiture to go forward, you'd then have to show something like a criminal conviction proving that the assets in question were, in fact, tied to criminal activity. You'd be wrong -- as is clear from what happened in this very case. Once the Justice Department effectively filed a lawsuit against "all of Kim Dotcom's money and stuff," Dotcom did what you're supposed to do in that situation and filed a challenge to such a ridiculous situation. And here the DOJ used the fact that Dotcom was fighting extradition to argue that he was a "fugitive." Judge O'Grady agreed with that last month, and that resulted in the decision earlier this week to then declare a "default judgment" in favor of the DOJ, and giving the US government all of Kim Dotcom's stuff.
A "default judgment?" As you know if you regularly read Techdirt, that's usually what happens when a defendant simply ignores a court case filed against him. As the court notes in this ruling, for that to happen in a civil asset forfeiture case, it means no one tried to block the claim:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 permits the court to grant a motion for default judgment when the well-pled allegations of the complaint establish plaintiff's entitlement to relief, and where a defendant has failed to plead or defend as provided by the rules.... In the civil forfeiture context, default judgment is permitted where no potential claimant has filed a response to the complaint...But, wait, you say: Kim Dotcom did file a complaint about the asset forfeiture, so how could a default judgment happen here? That's where the whole "fugitive" bit comes in. Because Dotcom won't come to the US, he's been deemed a fugitive, and thus the Judge simply hands over all of his stuff to the US government. And thus, without any sort of criminal conviction at all, the US gets to steal millions of dollars from Dotcom.
A defendant in default, and a claimant who fails to assert a claim in rem, is deemed to have admitted all of the plaintiff's well-pled allegations of fact, which then form the basis for the judgment in the plaintiff's favor.
If that sounds insane, you're absolutely right. And, again, it is entirely possible that when all of this is over, Kim Dotcom will be found guilty of "criminal conspiracy." If that's the case, then at that point it's reasonable to discuss whether the government should get to keep all of his stuff. But it seems an absolute travesty of concepts like due process for the government to be able to take all of his money and stuff based on purely procedural reasons having to do with a separate criminal case that hasn't even been tried yet.
The process isn't over yet. Dotcom can still appeal this ruling, though the real problem is with the civil asset forfeiture process, rather than how it was applied in this particular case. Dotcom also has other options for the assets that are in New Zealand and Hong Kong, in using the local courts in those places to try to block the transfer of those assets to the US government. Not knowing enough about the law in either place, it's difficult to say what the chances of success of such a strategy would be. Either way, this seems like a classic case demonstrating how the civil asset forfeiture process appears to be little more than legalized theft by the US government.
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, civil asset forfeiture, copyright, criminal copyright, doj, justice department, kim dotcom, liam o'grady
Companies: megaupload
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Theft vs 'Theft'
Dotcom has the fact that he has a working brain, and knows the kind of treatment he'd get if he stepped foot in the US used against him, and the USG steals tens of millions of dollars from him as a result, along with a whole slew of other pieces of property. And this is not supposed to be a horrible crime?
As if it wasn't obvious enough how big of a mess this whole case has been, and the kind of treatment he'd receive if extradited...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
Whose 95+% conviction /"win" rate tells of the Degree of corruption in a fiat system engineered, owned, operated and run by the several generations of fascissocialist "Democrats." Fundamental to whose essentially totalitarian ideology is the their own collectivists' conviction that the amoral (Theft, EG - as in this instance) may be made moral by "legislating" it so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
In general I agree with this uniparty theory. They are all part of the swamp that Trump is attempting to drain. That is why he is hated on both sides because he is a true outsider not beholden to any group or party. He risks destroying the entire rigged system of Government. Just like any wild animal if you corner them, they become very dangerous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
President Trump is not destroying our beloved fraternal republic's government but is, by ridding it of the "democrats'" Deep State's (bureaucratic) fiat courts and 4th branch's corrupt rigging, is restoring it. And are the dhimis, their RINOs and Fascist Media, pissed -- or are they all pissed?
Not since President Reagan, by ending their cold war. broke the fascist Left "democrats'" military-industrial-complex's rice bowl have they all been as Psychotically Enraged!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
President Trump...restoring government
The Poe factor on this one is well above my capacity to tell if it's ironic or sincere.
PB: 0.002
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
How many generations inbred are you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
Agree. It’s a corrupt system, engineered to distract a very easily distracted public that enjoys bickering over actually making real changes to the system. America needs a viable, electable third-party option as almost 90% are centrists, not being served by either of the two dominant parties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"90% are centrists"
Firstly, [citation needed]
Secondly, the studies that exist don't suggest people want moderate action and compromise down the middle, but agree with differing party positions depending on the subject. But centrists vehemently disagree with each other And they often have extremist positions on one topic or another.
So even if we had 90% centrists, they would never be a unified front, and would not necessarily approve of a given third party.
I might argue for a system that offers a dozen or so parties and a non-FPTP electoral system that allows them to play on an even field. But that hasn't helped the chaos in the UK all that much.
Maybe we should try a sortition by social security lottery?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
The rise of global banana republics.
Consider that organizations like the Atlantic Council, the WEF/Davos, the CFR, and numerous others exist as non-partisan/bipartisan membership entities.
Even often spanning beyond "nationalistic" tendencies.
The "Father of Spin", Edward Bernays, in his 1928 book "Propaganda" wrote:
"If you can influence the leaders, either with or without their conscious cooperation, you automatically influence the group which they sway"
and:
"The best defense against propaganda: more propaganda."
-Quoted in L. Tye The Father of Spin (1998) p. 102-
As in calling out an imaginary "deep state" whilst continuing to work for & support the true deep state.
The vast majority of humans are highly insecure and need group identity.
The vast majority of humans resort to the seeming instinct of "Dichotomous thinking" (i.e. groupthink {incl. 'in-group" & out-group], this or that, one or the other) and therefore tend to lump things into mere polar opposites.
They largely struggle with complicated concepts, organizational structures and/or operations.
As such, much human thinking and behavior is easily manipulated via groupthink propaganda.
As the mindless masses are continually herded into "polar/dichotomously opposing" groups, and kept busily distracted blaming & fighting each other over which sides "leaders" are more corrupt, those elite at the top are able to avoid detection/accountability.
It's interesting to read many of these old comments from say 2016, blaming the "Dems", yet now in 2019 with a "GOP" prez and senate, nothing has changed.
Where o' where are your "Great White Knights" in the "GOP" saving us from the ongoing Constitutional crises that continue?
Assange, Snowden, Dotcom.....shall I continue?
Each was persecuted by the "Dem" leadership, each continue to be persecuted by the "GOP" leadership.
And yet the richest of the rich keep gaining unprecedented wealth.
The most powerful elite gain ever-more power.
Since the 1980's, more & more of the largest "competing" corporations, in most every single industry, have become increasingly consolidated under the same largest ownership schema.
The same largest money-management & investment firms exist as the largest concentrated shareholders of most everything.
Plus, they exist as the largest shareholders/investors of each other.
Like one huge cartel.
They control the U.S., and thus global economy (take a look at how much U.S. money is invested in the largest Chinese firms).
As such, they control politics.
And as such, they control governments.
Even a "billionaire" prez is no match for the tens of trillions held & controlled by the elite.
Money IS power.
Those elite maintain the wealth to maintain power & control over anyone, especially those "in power".
Only those that pledge & demonstrate unwavering allegiance to those elite are allowed to advance up the hierarchy.
"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. One man thinks himself the master of others, but remains more of a slave than they are."
-Jean Jacques Rousseau, "The Social Contract"-
The former Age of Enlightenment has been dying a slow death.
Rights, freedoms, liberties and justice are increasingly assigned based on wealth.
People are increasingly being judged not just solely on the amount of capital they move in their lifetimes, but further on the amount of capital they direct to the .0002% (the billionaire class).
As Kim Dotcom (and his followers) gripes about the "liberals" and "Dems" stealing his money, both the "GOP" and "Dems", the neoconservatives and neoliberals, are continuing to steal tens of trillions from the commoners of the world, and hand those tens of trillions to the largest banks & trading houses, creating one of the largest stock bubbles (and numerous other asset bubbles) in known history (read about the South Sea and other corporate scandals in 18th century England, which largely led to the American, French & English revolutions).
As Kim Dotcom (and his followers) continue to complain of the "liberal" U.S. attempts to enslave him (likely via incarceration), the commoners of the world are forced deeper into their own enslavement, but cheering that enslavement as it comes from the "right" as opposed to that coming from the "left".
Enslavement is enslavement, regardless the partisan identity of the Masters.
Kudos to Super Skepti for cutting thru the "partisan" b.s. & being one of the very few to recognize & identify this growing problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
Absolutely correct the "liberals vs conservatives" divide is ultimately nothing but a kabuki theater designed to keep the electorate divided and fighting over non-existent differences. In reality it all serves to cement the establishment's grip on wealth and power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
Buy a Brain fascists always been far-right idiots like Trump MuRICANS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
Lies will never owe up to face justice??????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Lies will never owe up to face justice"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
Best he stay the Heck away!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
Buy a Brain. Fascists always been far-right christian idiots like Trump... This MURICANS...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
95% is because feds are careful what they prosecute. You need to include more info to make the point you're trying to make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
Hahahaha that's EXACTLY what I was thinking!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
.... If he were to step foot in America especially under the Obama administration he would have gone straight to prison ....
In fairness it won't matter who is occupying the White House if Mr Dotcom is ever press-ganged to America, as the criminal "justice" system and the, thus, made-fiat courts are comprehensively effectively owned operated and controlled by activists of the same totalitarian ideological bent as Obama. Who will spend as much as it takes to force Mr Dotcom or whomever is their victim of the minute to "plea bargain" into some form of conviction and/or loss. Its "conviction rate" of close to 96% is achieved by the criminal "justice" system standing over and threatening those it has predetermined are "guilty" ... until they agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
I have just spent two years back in New Zealand, which, in the years I have been away, has degenerated from a tough and hardy and monoculturally-unique and fabulously-well-assimilated land of which to be proud and into being a cheap Xerox copy of any one of the Europeons' neo-Soviet's on-and-offshore satellite states. As-if-cloned from any other soul-less governed by an increasingly-authoritarian, elitist, globalist, fascistic, ("private ownership" but intrusively-government-regulated) - "permanent public service."
The nation whose warriors once left their mark on battlefields all over the world and whose son effectively-single-handedly won the Battle of Britain, now rendered incapable of defending itself.
But has no difficulty terrorizing Mr Dotcom and his family nor of stripping him of his every last Brass Razu without his having ever had a minute - let alone his day - in court. Nor his having been charged with nor convicted of any offense in New Zealand law. (Nor in America - where the allegations against him are Civil in nature - not Criminal) -- B A.: L A CA -- and The Very Far Away
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
Pauli, get REAL! Check out what happened to Barrett Brown, a US citizen, when he tried to "clear his name". Kim Dotcom knows he'll be flung into the deepest, darkest dungeon they can find! Deep State is COMPLETELY beyond anyone's control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
I am innocent of any crime, but I would never want to go the the USA to be in court. The country is simply corrupt to the core!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Theft vs 'Theft'
90% of United States Federal prosecution is possession of you....
As long as you are not incarcerated (in their possession) you still retain all of your rights.
Jeff Sessions, previous AG that recused himself from the "Fake Russian Collusion" started up this unconstitutional theft of property after it had died down...
How can they even force this BS on someone that has no ties, associations, nadda with this once great country that is now a sinking ship......???!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greater of two evils.
If the US is trying to be the shining light and bastion of justice, they're doing exactly the opposite of what they should.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Greater of two evils.
If this is how they're acting when he's not even in the country, you could be sure once they got their hands on him the treatment would be much, much worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Greater of two evils.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Greater of two evils.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Greater of two evils.
.... If the US federal government is trying to be the shining light and bastion of justice, it is being exactly the opposite of what it should ....
True.
And soon - with this year's choice for "president" likely to be between a mentally-ill, misogynistic, deranged, delusional, malignantly narcissistic, career-cronyist con-man and a mentally-ill, misandristic, deranged, delusional,l malignantly narcissistic, co-serially-treasonous, career-cronyist recidivist - to be unimaginably worse.
God save us all!
Brian Richard Allen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Greater of two evils.
Thank God I got that half wrong!
President Trump? DRAIN THE SWAMP!
Mr Dotcom - Chase down Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and expose the Deep State's assassination of Seth Rich! (And others)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Greater of two evils.
You sure know a lot of big words! But, No Common Sense! Sad!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Greater of two evils.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Greater of two evils.
[ 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: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The DOJ has destroyed evidence/ensured that it would be destroyed(and in the process destroyed his business, all without a finding of 'guilty' or even a trial), illegally taken evidence out of the country, knowingly lied to a court about the legality of serving him, and then tried to get the laws changed later to retroactively make their previous claims true, called for extension after extension for the extradition case in order to drain as much money as they can from him, conned the NZ police into performing a SWAT-style raid on his house by lying and claiming he could do something they knew he couldn't(remotely wipe the servers they had already seized)... do I really need to go on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They may not have directly destroyed evidence and MU property, but through their actions they knowingly ensured that it would happen.
As for 'gushing', I couldn't care less about Dotcom personally, what I care about is seeing justice carried out, and having your property stolen and/or destroyed, all without stepping foot in a courtroom or being found guilty, is not justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If someone thinks that justice is punishing the guilty, then due process goes out the window. Who cares how many rights are stepped on, what evidence is destroyed, what lies are told? We got the bad guy.
However, if someone thinks justice is protecting the innocent, then due process becomes the primary goal of the investigation. Have to make damn sure they're looking to punish the right person because you cannot punish the innocent.
Thanks to a few common quotes we hear all the time we know that justice in the United States is suppose to be about protecting the innocent. "Innocent until proven guilty" "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer" -Benjamin Franklin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, it seems more like he sees justice as punishing the accused.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow. Disinformation much?
Or were you just trying to deny the events as they happened?
Relying on such semantics is sleazy. Don't do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Absolute, fucking god-damn LIE. You are LYING, period. It has been PROVEN that the USG has destroyed evidence in this case, and directly ordered evidence to be destroyed.
You deserve all the auto-reports you get for your blatant attempt at misrepresenting the facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You really should learn to read more than just this site's representations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you really trying to re-write history here? One has to wonder why you would do such a thing.
[ 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:
Uh...from the USG themselves? You really need to figure out how to use Google someday. Oh wait, thats right, you can't because Google=piracy and you are paid to support that view to the exclusion of logic or common sense.
[ 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:
Anonymous Coward, Mar 27th, 2015 @ 2:30pm
You even admit it yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
... Equals "can't use a search engine." I hope your mother's proud. I prefer ixquick.com, but that may be too technical for you to handle, sorry. Ask your mom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cory Doctorow at 10:00 am Sat, Apr 21, 2012
Remember earlier this year when the New Zealand government and the US government conspired to send a SWAT team to arrest Kim Dotcom, founder of Megaupload, shut down the service, make 220 people unemployed, seize Dotcom's assets, and deprive millions of users of access to their files? Well now a US judge says that the trial against Dotcom will probably never proceed, because the US government didn't ever formally charge Dotcom. This wasn't a mere oversight, either. They were not legally allowed to charge him. TorrentFreak reports:
“I frankly don’t know that we are ever going to have a trial in this matter,” Judge O’Grady said as reported by the NZ Herald.
Judge O’Grady informed the FBI that Megaupload was never served with criminal charges, which is a requirement to start the trial. The origin of this problem is not merely a matter of oversight. Megaupload’s lawyer Ira Rothken says that unlike people, companies can’t be served outside US jurisdiction.
“My understanding as to why they haven’t done that is because they can’t. We don’t believe Megaupload can be served in a criminal matter because it is not located within the jurisdiction of the United States,” Rothken says.
Megaupload’s lawyer adds that he doesn’t understand why the US authorities weren’t aware of this problem before. As a result Judge O’Grady noted that Megaupload is “kind of hanging out there.”
===========================================
He has not been charged with a crime. So the USG doesn't have the ability (or desire, but thats a separate issue) to let him have access to what they seized, as that would be part of a *criminal* discovery process. So, by doing nothing, and since possession is 9/10th of the law, the USG is effectively denying access to the confiscated servers. QED.
[ 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:
That you are ethically lacking enough to argue minor semantics on an issue where the government is clearly wrong here shows what kinda ethically bankrupt people IP extremists are. You care nothing about justice just your bottom line. It's sad that low life people like you even exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
MegaUpload believed it would then be able to copy information from the servers itself. Rothken said he attempted to hire an electronic-discovery expert from KPMG to collect the data, but found that the cost would exceed $7 million. U.S. officials declined to release funds from MegaUpload's seized assets to pay for the operation, the lawyer said.
Source: http://www.cnet.com/news/megaupload-lawyer-claims-the-feds-are-impeding-its-defense/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the DOJ wanted to argue "asset freeze" because they had suspicion (and some reasonable evidence to back it up) that the funds were derived from illegal activity, I could support that logic. But to confiscate the assets before it's even been proven that any crimes were committed? Sounds like theft to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But his conviction is pretty much a formality, what with him without the money to pay a defense and the movie industry greasing and writing the DoJ opinions.
So since his conviction is only a formality, it would be a pity to let him waste money on it that is very much deserved by the DoJ to reward their ingenuity in turning the delivery of justice into a cash cow.
Yes, we can!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In fact, it's unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The evil cabal will NOT give us justice. They own us! We just have to continue to fight and not give up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A: Infringement is not theft and is not inherently morally wrong.
B: Kim.com did nothing to encourage infringement and did everything he can to remove it from his servers. He shouldn't be held responsible for the fact that some users may have used his servers for infringement anymore than the post office should be held responsible for the actions of those that use it unlawfully.
C: This isn't really about infringement. It's about certain middlemen that want to limit the distribution options of artists by refusing them the ability to distribute content without going through them so that they can wrongfully monopolize it and profit from it at the expense of both artists and the public. Copy protection laws are being used as a tool to allow these middlemen the ability to literally steal from everyone.
D: What these IP extremists are doing is literally theft and is morally wrong all in the name of defending against infringement, something that's not morally wrong, for the real purpose of defending against competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As to the USG confiscating assets [at whim] and holding /destroying/profiting from them: It is and has been a freakish WINDFALL for the corrupt and incompetent infesting " the US justice system" via search and seizure "probable cause" laws. perverted selective interpretations. Yep! Thats our justice system today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hey fucktard. Yeah, you. His passport was taken away from him as a condition of his bail. HE CAN'T LEAVE THE COUNTRY. So, tell us how he has "missed opportunities"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Either way your entire idea is stupid. He is on legal bail in New Zealand, one of our closest allies. If the USG had legal grounds to require extradition, he would be here. He's about as likely to get a fair trial as Edward Snowden would. If you think the U.S. courts aren't influenced by political pressure you are horribly naïve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom Wednesday made the Department of Justice an offer he hopes it can't refuse: He'll drop his resistance to the extradition request filed by U.S. authorities with the New Zealand government, provided that prosecutors agree to a few simple demands.
"Hey DOJ, we will go to the U.S.," said Dotcom Wednesday via his Twitter account. "No need for extradition. We want bail, funds unfrozen for lawyers & living expenses."
The offer of a deal from German national Dotcom--formerly known as Kim Schmitz, and Kim Tim Jim Vestor--comes as his legal fees continue to mount. To date, he's retained 22 lawyers in multiple countries to work on the case. The related legal costs have totaled millions of dollars and have been exacerbated by delays in his extradition hearing, with a New Zealand court Tuesday saying that the next hearing into the extradition request would be delayed from next month to next year. "
http://www.darkreading.com/vulnerabilities-and-threats/megauploads-kim-dotcom-offers-to-extradite-h imself/d/d-id/1105269?
It's the USG that doesn't want him to be able to defend himself.
Also, IIRC (though I can't find articles about it now), at one time he even offered to stand a civil trial in the U.S. against those that accused him of intentionally supporting infringement if they sued him. But the RIAA/MPAA weren't interested in suing him, they would rather get the government to do their dirty work for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps China should pursue charges against Cisco now and seize all of John Chambers property due to the NSA scandal. I'm sure that would work well in the other direction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, stolen. The 4th amendment to the US constitution is supposed to protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. Taking someone's money and assets simply because they've been accused of a crime is completely unreasonable.
If KDC eventually ends up in the US and he's found innocent of the charges, will the US government hand all his stuff back?
How is it in any way legal to take the property of someone who has never been convicted of doing anything wrong?
Tell you what, I think you're a criminal, so I'm going to take your home, your car and your bank account. That's all perfectly legal, right?
KDC has had numerous opportunities to appear before the federal court in Alexandria, VA and present a defense. That he has elected not to do so, thus waiving substantive rights and setting the stage for a default, is quite telling.
Maybe he doesn't feel like he'll get a fair trial, especially considering the fact that he isn't an American and American laws don't actually apply to him.
Or are you one of those people who think that US laws can be enforced worldwide? If so, are you ready to be shipped to the middle east to asnwer for all the things you've done in your life that have violated their laws? After all, if one country's laws apply to foreign citizens, then all those other laws apply to you as well, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What if China charged you with violating some dumb Chinese law, then used the trans-national elements of banking and "mutual assistance legal treaties" to forfeit all your assets when you didn't show up to China to stand trial?
The US is rapidly losing its footing as the sort of nation-state to which a person can be presumed to receive a fair trial. All sorts of countries are looking to update their extradition laws on the basis of United States overreach in hacking and even anti-trust cases (where an Italian citizen doing business with a Japanese company was extradited from Germany for being in violation of US law!!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: KDC
Spoken like a kidnapper/ransom-seeker with a gun in the victim's pubescent daughter's ear.
[ 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:
this is selective enforcement of a civil suit using criminal law tools. And I really don't care to hear if congress made this a criminal charge because let's face it you and I don't get this sort of sweetheart deal protecting us from competitive forces like the hoards of illegal aliens coming across the border. Nooo ...that's only for Hollywood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: U.S. criminal government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's like having all your assets taken by the King of some Islamic country because you refuse to go to this Islamic country for a trial they have set up against you because you said something against the Koran online in your home in Texas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have a lot of US friends, I like a lot of US music, movies, games and other such things, but the US federal government are the most corrupt murderous deceitful, and all around scummy bastards on the face of this earth. This is just another case in point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is where they take other ridiculous cases like those against Julian Assange/Wikileaks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are the reason for the status quo. No disrespect but, you fuck you sir, fuck you very much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why isn't every manufacturer of hard drives, network components, ISP's, blu-ray burners.etc also charged with facilitating?
He ran a online storage company. That believed in privacy.
Shame USG, shame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TROLL
Even though your obviously a T-R-O-L-L......
The reason I just watched a very funny twitter post of Kim's showing him & his girl having fun driving up through the mountains, IS BECAUSE he never stepped foot in this country!!! 90% of federal prosecution is "possession of your @SS"!!!!
After locking him up their 1st argument in court to NOT GRANT HIM BAIL would have been he was a "FLIGHT RISK" as he is not a United States citizen.... which is laughable since their screwing him over like he was/is!!!!
What was wrong with America is it had been operated under a "UNI-PARTY" these last 30 years, after Reagan... with both sides intent on it's destruction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TROLL
Spot on about the past 30 years, though the un-and-anti-American uniparty's destructive activities and actions can surely be tracked via the definitive traitor, Franklin Milhous not a typo Roosevelt back to the first full-blown fascist, Wilson -- and likely even to 'anti-truster,' Theodore Roosevelt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: TROLL
And then there is that President Trump joins the few: Ronald Reagan, Calvin Coolidge and, perhaps, Hoover, among them; who are/were out to reverse the uniparty's destructiveness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm Back From the Grave
All of the battles, arguments, progress, precedences we all suffered for back in the day... My God!
Everything we feared has come true! That paper my friend and adversary Thomas crafted is no longer of any value.
Might someone please disclose where the elusive principles of todays legal system might be displayed?
The ghosts of my colleagues and I will be forced to inspire a new generation of critical thinking freedom seeking patriots.
Beware! You have been warned!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm Back From the Grave
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm Back From the Grave
However, there are some of us that are against civil forfeiture laws as we believe they are unconstitutional and should be abolished. One thing we pride ourselves with (or used to) was the rule of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law". I strongly feel that forfeiture laws circumvent this.
As for KDC, I think we all need to realize that copyright infringement is not a crime in NZ, so I don't understand how the US has the authority to charge him with a crime.
It's like this... I own a handgun in Georgia and it's not a crime, but a prosecutor in Washington DC charges me with owning a handgun because it's illegal in DC. Should I have to travel to DC to defend myself even though I've never been to DC?
I'm sure I've broken many many laws that are on the books in Iran, that are perfectly legal here. Can Iran seize all my assets and force me to travel there to defend myself against things that are illegal there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We are, after all, talking about the "Department of Justice" of the United States of America here. You would not expect a Ministry of Agriculture to dig holes, either.
[ 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:
I am gloating. I applaud the hardworking government actors who are bringing Dotcom to justice, kicking and screaming as he is. I sleep confidently and soundly every night knowing the countless sacrifices they make to ensure the protection of my own liberties and rights. Kudos on a job well done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Police brutality is criminal and wrong. The government here is playing by the book. Dotcom wanted the benefits of being able to defend his property in the court, but not the burden of submitting himself to the court to face his criminal charges. I see no reason why he should get it both ways. Why should the court permit him to assert his rights when he's dodging his responsibilities to that same court?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't you think that the court, at the very least, should have the duty to wait until there's actually a criminal conviction before taking everything? Or do you believe that it is just and proper to take everything despite no crime being officially determined by a court? Think carefully. Your answer will reveal a lot about you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm sure you've already made up your mind about me before you asked the question. That said, what's decided by the court is whether the property is forfeitable by a preponderance of the evidence. You're suggesting a higher burden of proof, essentially, beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't know enough about the policy reasons for using preponderance. I believe it comes from admiralty/maritime law. It seems to me that much of our property is susceptible to being taken away based on only a preponderance. Think tort law. If the burden of proof for forfeitures were raised, I wouldn't really have an opinion on it until I understood the issues better. I don't have a sufficient grasp of the pros and cons, so I don't really have opinion. Judge away!
[ 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: 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: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for showing the principals here to be wrong, clearly your consideration of what he has to say is sorely lacking, and this entire matter with Megaupload and its principals is an excellent example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why don't you take some of the advice you regularly dole out to Mike and tell us what you think about the government taking peoples' property before there's even been a trial, let alone a guilty verdict. It's not a legal question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I didn't ask you what the law said was the standard. I asked you whether you felt it was just and proper for the government to take someone's property without a criminal conviction by a court?
Could you please answer the question?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Could you please answer the question?
I made clear that I haven't given it much thought, and I'm not aware of the arguments for and against. I like to research issues before forming an opinion on them, unlike many people on Techdirt, especially Mike. That said, even if there is no underlying conviction, there is nonetheless a forfeiture action where the burden is on the government to prove the property is forfeitable. The underlying crime and the property's connection to it still has to be proved. There's ample due process protections for property owners. They, of course, have to submit to the court's jurisdiction first. Dotcom wanted to show up in court to protect his property, but he didn't want to face his charges in that same court. He wants the benefits, but not the burdens, of the legal system. I don't think that's right. I assume he didn't show up to defend his property for the same reason he's fighting so hard to not face his charges. He knows he's going to lose. To answer your question to the best of my ability, I don't think it's necessarily unjust and improper, given the procedural protections. I think there might be policy reasons out there that would make me see it differently, but I just haven't really looked into it. I understand that some think the process is being abused, but I don't really know either way. Abuse is wrong, and I'm against it. But with Dotcom, I don't see abuse. What do you think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I like to research issues before forming an opinion on them, unlike many people on Techdirt, especially Mike."
And:
"I assume he didn't show up to defend his property for the same reason he's fighting so hard to not face his charges. He knows he's going to lose."
Did you research that issue? Did you research the history of how the DOJ conducts criminal trials? Did you research how US Attorneys often railroad innocent people just to keep their conviction rates up? Did you research the history of how the civil asset forfeiture process is abused?
No. Of course you didn't. You only pretend to do it when you want to attack Mike because you're a jealous, petty little man-child. Stop being such a fucking hypocrite all the time AJ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you research that issue? Did you research the history of how the DOJ conducts criminal trials? Did you research how US Attorneys often railroad innocent people just to keep their conviction rates up? Did you research the history of how the civil asset forfeiture process is abused?
No. Of course you didn't. You only pretend to do it when you want to attack Mike because you're a jealous, petty little man-child. Stop being such a fucking hypocrite all the time AJ.
Despite your abusiveness, I'm happy to respond to your point (though I think we're getting pretty meta here).
Not all opinions are the same. There are opinions based on dogged research, there are opinions based on nothing at all, and there are opinions that fall somewhere in between. I began the second sentence you quoted with "I assume." This was intended to signal to the reader that I'm about to offer something on the conjecture end of the spectrum. I literally indicated that it was an assumption before saying it.
That's quite different than the opinion I have about Dotcom's guilt. For that opinion, I relied primarily on the government's superseding indictment and the summary of the evidence: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-edva/legacy/2013/12/20/Certified%20Mega%20Supersedin g%20Indictment%20%282-16-2012%29.pdf & http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-edva/legacy/2013/12/20/Mega%20Evidence.pdf I relied on the whole thing, not ignoring the parts I didn't like.
I also based it of the filings from both parties, as well as the judge's rulings, all of which I've read. On top of that, I've done extensive research into criminal copyright infringement, reading many treatises, decisions, law reviews, etc. My opinion there is well-formed and well-supported. It's at the opposite end of the spectrum from conjecture.
I'm not jealous, but I can certainly be petty at times. I don't think I'm being petty here with my criticism of Mike's predictable defense of Dotcom. Mike is looking at the same sources at me, and, frankly, he's reaching ridiculous opinions that just aren't supported in reality. I'm not saying all of his points are ridiculous. On the contrary, he makes good points sometimes. That's why I read Techdirt.
But some of his claims aren't defensible, and it clear that he's not interesting in trying to defend them. He often states these things as fact, when oftentimes they're debatable at best and lies at worst. The difference between us is that Mike has no problem stating unsupported opinions as fact, while I prefer to do my homework beforehand. The irony is that his blog posts constantly call out the shortcomings in others, yet he's so sensitive and dismissive of his own faults.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's very difficult to get an antidirt to understand a point of view if his job requires him to NOT understand it.
If you read the points of view (DOJ and Judge) espoused in above dokies where the espousers have an agenda to be corrupt then you canna trust anything they espouse. If you believe what they have written then you can only be considered a foolish homme and anything you therefore espouse should be considered as corrupt as the original espousers.
You are no different to any rank and file KKKer in their attitude of "kill the nigger's" or if we use "Godwin's Law", you are no better than the rank and file SS Gestapo with their attitude of "kill the piggish Jews".
You don't seem to recognise that when a government or a government's justice system and law enforcement uses corrupt means in doing its work, nothing that it then does is moral and they have become worse than anyone they are prosecuting, worse than the murderers, rapists, child molesters, drug runners, kidnappers, etc. that they purport to protect society from.
Because of the position and authority they hold, they MUST be held to a standard far above the citizen's themselves and the moment they fail to operate at that standard and NOT immediately rectify the problem, they are no longer able to be trusted or even be respected even though the position they hold should still be respected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
TD, Slashdot (may it rest in peace) had "Goto Parent" buttons which were quite useful. Just a suggestion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Both you and the DOJ can stick that point straight up your asses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I bet you would sing a different tune if some random drug informant pointed his finger at you and you had all of you possessions taken via asset forfeiture procedures before you were able to defend yourself against the false charges.
And just so you know, my opinion of you has just dropped about 20 notches AJ. I once believed you were, at the very least, a fair and just person, even when your arguments and opinions were opposed to mine. Not so much anymore. You seem to have already tried and convicted Dotcom based on one side of a story. That's something morons do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
More to the point, apparently he goes to bed every night "confidently" ruminating on the DOJ's silly multi-year quest to prosecute a guy who, even if cast in the very worst possible light, is still guilty of nothing more than messing with a film industry (that is still, and has never stopped, making tons of money) with a website that's been gone for ages now and was instantly replaced with barely a hiccup in the availability of pirated content... and this thought comforts him and gives him sweet dreams.
That's something morons do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've been reading the briefing from both sides. On the merits of the alleged crime, I've read the superseding indictment, and in these very comments, I've outlined several examples of alleged direct criminal infringement by Dotcom and friends. These aren't third parties. These are the alleged principal coconspirators. Yet, Mike has been writing about this case for years, always questioning the government's case, yet never acknowledging the alleged direct criminal infringement. Funny how you fault me for reaching an opinion based on the indictment, but you don't fault Mike for purposely ignoring the parts of the indictment he doesn't like while spouting legal opinions he won't back up in the comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not faulting you for your opinion. I'm faulting you for supporting the government's actions in this case. If the government's case is as rock solid as you claim, then why all the shenanigans in preventing Dotcom from mounting a viable defense? What is happening in this case doesn't even come close to the concept of "justice" and even you should take issue with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny how you cut off my point about Mike intentionally misrepresenting the government's allegations. I don't agree that Dotcom has not been permitted to mount a viable defense. He's got extensive legal representation in two different countries. They're throwing out every argument they can think of and appealing everything that doesn't stick. He getting better representation than most. If you're referring to the server thing, I don't think there's been any exculpatory evidence destroyed. The government has the server logs, the chats and emails (which amazingly seem to have been plaintext), the bank receipts, etc. What relevant information was on the servers that were lost? Wasn't it just files stored by third parties that are not part of the government's case? How could those possibly be exculpatory? Even if the government stipulates that each and every file lost were noninfringing, that doesn't help Dotcom. No one can even posit a guess about what might possibly have been lost that was relevant. Besides, if the government destroyed evidence, that would help Dotcom. That's the last thing the government wants to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I just didn't have a comment on that part. You are entitled to your opinions.
He's got extensive legal representation in two different countries.
Huh. Last I heard his "extensive legal representation" bailed because the USG won't allow him access to his own money.
http://www.techspot.com/news/58985-kim-dotcom-legal-team-exits-megaupload-founder-runs.html
The government has the server logs, the chats and emails (which amazingly seem to have been plaintext), the bank receipts, etc.
Out of context, cherry-picked evidence....yeah, that wouldn't be real convincing to me if I was on the jury.
What relevant information was on the servers that were lost?
Good question. Now thanks to the efforts of the USG we will never actually know.
Besides, if the government destroyed evidence, that would help Dotcom. That's the last thing the government wants to do.
Yeah, you would think so. That also makes the government's actions all the more suspect to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's a fact. The indictment alleges many acts of direct infringement, for example, scraping YouTube and posting a pre-release version of the movie "Taken," yet Mike has several posts claiming the government's legal case makes no sense, and he makes no mention of these allegations. This has been pointed out to Mike many times, yet he never admits these allegations even exist. It's weird how you don't call him out for it.
Out of context, cherry-picked evidence....yeah, that wouldn't be real convincing to me if I was on the jury.
How are the emails where the coconspirators discuss how they're scraping YouTube at Dotcom's insistence out of context and cherry picked? How are the files on the Megaupload servers that resulted from that scraping out of context and cherry picked? What about the movie "Taken"? How are the emails and the file itself out of context and cherry picked? No wonder you won't fault Mike for intentionally lying about the existence of these allegations. You can't even admit them yourself.
Good question. Now thanks to the efforts of the USG we will never actually know.
This is the best answer you, Mike, or his best bud Dotcom, can come up with. It's not an answer. Note how no one can even hypothesize about any particular relevant evidence that has been lost. It's a stupid argument, and it will be rejected like so many of the other stupid arguments in support of Dotcom.
[ 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:
But the government doing everything they can legally to prosecute and make it difficult for the accused to defend themselves is just playing by the book and perfecly fine.
And even if you never question the legality of what the government is doing, you certainly never question the morality of it because you firmly believe that if it's the law, it must be just and good.
[ 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:
An a shaky indictment, an illegal raid, destruction of evidence and now stripping the accused of his assets before any trial.
Anyone NOT questioning it is lacking some mental faculties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Can't wait for your ass to get doxxed and see you screaming your innocence as they haul you off to trial, after seizing all your assets, then making you wait 3-5 years for your trial to start. You'll be pulling a Ted Cruz-like turnaround so fast it will make it look like Superman spinning the earth backwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wonder if they've got a plan when other countries do the same thing....gloat away, fucktard.
[ 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: Re: Re:
In private?!? This is the United States Trade Representative, the President of The United States' right hand man! What are you talking about, "private."
Why're you blaming corporations for this? Grr ...
[I don't actually know how you're expected to respond to this if you do. No matter. I may have bugs up my butt about both corporations and politicos. Yup, that's it.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 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:
Wow, spot the fanboi... What "countless sacrifices" are you talking about exactly? All I see are lawyers being paid with taxpayer dollars to do their damn job (badly so far).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That you are so morally bankrupt you don't even consider the injustice the government has done here, instead opting to think of how they are protecting your selfish interests, should show everyone what kinda person you are. You won't even consider the possibility that the government's injustice outweighs your personal interests or even ask the question of whether or not the government has really done anything unjust because, frankly, you don't care so long as your personal interests are served.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you pick up the phone in the United States and threaten to kill someone on the other end in New Zealand, you've committed a crime in New Zealand, whether you've ever set foot there or not. Dotcom's ties to the United States were significant, including many servers in Virginia, where he's being charged. That seems to be his biggest mistake jurisdiction-wise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Question - what ties are/were there, APART from the servers in Virginia? You sound like there were ties that don't include those servers. I've been following this case since day one and not once have I ever seen anything tying Kim Dotcom to the US, apart from those servers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you seriously suggesting that he wouldn't be allowed to go to the United States to face the charges? He's out on bail because of these same charges. They would let him go. He's a fugitive in part because he offered to come to the U.S. if the government would agree to his terms. They didn't. He gets the same terms as every other criminal defendant. The power is and has been in his hands to submit. He's chosen not to, and now it's bit him hard with this default. He's dug his hole, now he's laying in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Did I operate a service in Russia, from servers hosted in Russia, making millions of dollars that I routed through Russian banks, while intentionally violating the rights of thousands of people in Russia? That would make it more of the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't even try to twist what I say and just READ for once in your life. Post a comment on a Youtube video, Owned by Google, where are those servers? Everywhere that people want to ACCESS it. Data is replicated. China doesn't like your comments? WELL GUESS WHAT, GOOGLE SERVER IN CHINA. I will not stand for this bullshit anymore. Nobody can be held accountable for CORPORATE EXPANSION where servers HAVE to be in other countries to provide its services for other people at low latency and fast bandwidth. Maybe next time you should actually READ UP on how the Internet works and then MAYBE you will have some enlightenment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I declare your comment illegal in bumfuck nowhere and expect you to surrender yourself to be flown there for judgement.
No, you're the one who needs to calm his jiggling tits and think about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And what were those terms again? Oh yes, that they would guarantee a fair trial, and allow him access to his funds so he could actually afford to pay for a lawyer, instead of having to go with whatever poor, utterly unprepared sod that was assigned to him. Yes indeedy, quite the gall he has to be making demands like those.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a poison pill, but I'm always in favor of using weapons against their creators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WOW,
IN the USA you can not take an individuals money, if you are filing against the Corp..And you can not prosecute an individual if its a fault of the corporation..
Even IF' the person was at fault..you have to have 110% proof that only an individual Created the fault on purpose and with forethought..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WOW,
DOJ indeed. More like Department of Injustice. Dotcom is in a terrible position. They've basically got a gun to his head, told him that if he comes to the US they'll fire, and then say "If you don't come to the US we'll take everything you own." Either way they win and that's what makes a good lawyer...right? It's not about justice...it's about power.
I used to be concerned about the constitution and freedom and all these ideological issues until I realized they're all just propaganda. Our society has not yet evolved past the law of the jungle. I'm concerned...but not because I feel like my rights are being trampled...but that I'm just sitting in a cave with sabre tooth tigers wandering around looking for a meal.
Dotcom is just a tasty looking snack and the massive public doesn't get it enough to be outraged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WOW,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's more embarassing to the US that these seizures are being expoused as "legal"
Like when we decide that torture is legal and that mass surveillance is legal and denying human beings rights without due process is legal it weakens the notion that legal in the US has anything to do with what is right or good.
And then when a person advocate that the legality of such things is based on it being right, that would raise question as to that person's own sense of morality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
when the doj takes your money,
money u need to pay lawyers,
and the doj has unlimited time money to fight u in court .
YOU are innocent until proven guilty ,
even if his company upload a few files ,
music etc ,
which is not proven yet,
that,s not a criminal offence.
ALSO its been shown the police and security services
broke some new zealand laws .
But this is been ignored ,
if he was a german or eu citizen,
it would have been hard for the doj to take most of his money,
before he even appeared in court ,
or was Proven to have committed a criminal act.
he is not a us citizen,
this charge he is a fugitive is a legal tactic to
justify taking all his money.
theres 100s of people in us jails right now,
cos they are poor,
ie they don,t have the money to pay their bail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kim Dotcom paying legal council
I remember the specific news announcements when a judge forced the US Department of Justice to relinquish some of Dotcom's assets from their frozen state in order that Dotcom may eat some Cheereos and pay some lawyers.
It specifically happened. It's not an indication of false statements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If a country can just take what they like, what is the point in laws anymore? I should now be able to go and take what I like at any time and claim its for the poor Movie Studios. you know they are never going to see one cent of this money, but it is for them. Guess I should be able to go and steal millions for all the crap I have watched and listened to over the years put out by the **AA'S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welcome to the America is worse than Nazi Germany club.
Germany 1939 was run by ideologists. USA 2015 is run by the mob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So to say they are 'worse than' these things is kind of misleading. They *ARE* these things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Assume for a moment we are talking about a reputed cartel leader, never been to the US but indicted for drug crimes and fighting extradition from a third country to the United States. Yet the US moves to seize his (presumably ill-gotten) assets declaring him a fugitive from justice. That shit happens all the time and no one cares because he selling dope not engaging in infringement. So it seems the issue is not whether it is legitimate and proper (it is)- but whether it is legitimate in an infringement case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The correct procedure would have been to use the International Criminal Court to bring charges against him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think that you must be slow or something. If a Mexican drug lord ships heroin to the US, do you think he's immune from prosecution simply because he resides in Mexico??? The nexus for Dotcom was his use of servers located in the Southern District of Virginia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I care.
Any asset forfeiture not tied to a criminal conviction is a travesty of justice as far as I'm concerned and that includes drug dealers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Open up that particular can of worms, and you could have any country on the planet seizing funds or assets, from US companies or people, or anyone else on the planet, and then justifying their theft by claiming that the accused refusing to travel to their country is evidence enough of their guilt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe it shouldn't be legit and proper in the dope case.
It's okay because we know Capone was a dirtbag, right?
Except that it served as a precedent for practice that now extends to non-dirtbags. The state decided it could get away with creative interpretation and now it's abused all. the. fucking. time.
Back to the present, Dotcom's case is showing a corruption of justice. The DoJ's actions against Dotcom is (amongst a ton of other incidents) raising the validity of the US Courts to fairly adjudicate.
And that means that all our prisoners, much like the prisoners in North Korea, are not criminal prisoners but political prisoners. Right down to the psycho-killers and terrorists that we know did it.
That means that Mansion and Kaczynski may yet get their reprieve, on USA Bastille day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ 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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The lesson is:
This is really the DoJ waging a war against the U.S. treasury. It is self defeating, because the MOST important asset the U.S. has as a sovereign nation is full faith and credit in the dollar.
In the aggregate, this trend is seditious. It doesn't matter whether Kim Dot Com is a criminal. If you wage war on the dollar, you are waging a war on the people. The damage to the United States reputation caused by these utterly transparent extra-jurisdictional prosecutions does more damage to the U.S. as a whole, than the DoJ's smash and grab will ever recover in claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank You For Recognizing The Insanity
Thank you for these breaths of fresh air you have written
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personally, I wouldn't have even dignified that headline with the 'legally'. I mean, just because you're following the letter of the law, it doesn't always make what you're doing right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anon
Kim Dotcom is a fugitive, he hasn't moved and still live at home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kimdotcum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US presence
Turns out that US has state laws that will by default consider you having "presence in the US" if you sell above a certain limit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
... Leaving him begging a judge for a few million just to assemble the requisite legal team to attempt to defend himself.
Anytime you want out of that crazy country Mike, I'll swear to and sign anything on your behalf. Just say the word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even the relatively sane countries tend to tolerate a few things that others would find intolerable for cultural or historic reasons.
Leaving is rarely a way to find a better country - reform is usually a better way. And if you can't find a way to meaningful reform, it is usually because you haven't looked hard enough.
[ 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 ]
Extrajudicial Seizure of Kim Dotcom
Except now our jail cells are impacted with right bastards the guilt of whom we've presumed, because throwing people in jail is what cops and judges like to do. Really. Some have said as much that it's better to lock up a hundred innocent Americans than let a criminal walk.
Whatever Kim Dotcom did, didn't warrant us importing a SWAT raid ti New Zealand just for him, or seizing all his assets so that he can't afford a proper defense (an action which, incidentally, belies a lack of faith in the justice system), nor constructing a rap sheet of super-ambiguous charges like conspiracy. Just conspiracy.
Dotcom isn't a hero for Megaupload. He's a hero for fighting back against a ruthless, corrupt Department of Justice. Because what they're trying to do to him, they'd gladly do to you next, if someone dislikes you enough to bury you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ugh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Extradition.
Cheers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
joke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: joke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Obvious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
United States of America v Kim Dotcom
Having, for decades and particularly since the time on Earth of the loathsome and fearsome traitor, F D Roosevelt, insidiously, arrogated all "legal" powers unto itself, that foul and criminal claque already effectively owns, operates and controls America's "law schools" and "judges" and rule-by-fiat "courts" and uses them to control, to intimidate, to stand-over, to shakedown -- and to advance pretty much only its own evil.
New Zealand's somewhat smug yet slippery-slope-sliding-toward-authoritarian-regulatory (fascistic) government is of the habit of RATifying America's worst "laws." Draconian such "law" related to taxation and banking, as recent examples
Here's one American wishes you Good Luck with all of that, Herr Dotcom.
Kia Ora!
Brian Richard Allen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
confiscation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: confiscation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
arouk: ..... the creation of the state of Israel and the theft of "palestinian" lands to do so ....
Goebbels Standard Big Lie!
The Nation of Israel has historical roots dating back more than 4000 years in the lands to which you refer and including those that were for a time called Trans Jordan and are presently occupied by the less than 100-years-old so-called "4000-years-old hashemite 'kingdom' of" Jordan. Also part of the historically Jewish Nation's lands and sovereign territories but now Arab-occupied are Judeo and The Shamron (Samaria) and the Gaza Strip.
The people you call "palestinians" are a collection of Bedouin, "Jordanian," Saudi, Lebanese, Syrian, Egyption, Yemini and various other assorted moslem Arabs who began calling themselves "palestinian" only during the late 1960s, having just been invented as such by the mass-murderer, Yasser Arafat.
Unless the actual, moslem-Arab, occupiers are so (accurately) identified, Judea and Samaria, the so-called "occupied territories" -- and Gaza -- upon all of which the self-styled "palestinians" squat, are no such thing. But are, (including in international "law") definitively, "Disputed Territories."
As for America "arming Israel with nuclear bombs:" America is more likely to learn from the Israelis than to teach them. Especially when it comes to the art of self defense. To the art of war!
And nor did the Nazis need (nor use) America to launder their loot. For that, they had the, much more conveniently-located, Swiss. And although then president, the "Democrat," Harry Truman, had a hand in effectively reversing Douglas McArthur's, America's and our allies great Korean victories (and when was there ever a great American victory traitorous "Democrats" didn't subsequently reverse?) Kim Il-Sung and his co-monster cohort, Mao Tse Tung, imposed their evil on the Koreans and split the nation.
Am Yisrael Chai!
Brian Richard Allen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NONSENSE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Coward
1. Bullshht;
2. Are you taking something for that?
3 .... America cannot stop the world from HATING The United States of America .... Or, rather, "the world" cannot stop itself from hating America. Such is the grip upon it of its own Malignant Envy. But;
4. America can handle it. We're a magnanimous mob!
Brian Richard Allen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How The US Government Legally Stole Millions From Kim Dotcom
He will be given an option, admit guilt and sighn away his assets, in return he and his other "co-conspirators" can walk free under home detention laws.
Convicting them and sending them off to prison is too risky. it will never die down and keep coming back to haunt the Doj again and again. They will propbably be hoping like hell the plane crashes with him on it on the way over.
Im hoping he wins and stays in NZ .Im hoping he doeant turn into a bitter and twisted man after all this, but how can it not.
I wish Mr Dotcom all the best. And all the haters can go to hell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-via asset forfeiture they are stealing MORE than ALL THE OTHER GANGS TOGETHER within the US.
-Hollywood does not like the internet
-they think the UNIVERSE is within their jurisdiction
do your math
it is only a logical consequence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Un artista solo recibe miseria de lo recaudado de sus discos, si no tiene varios echos simplemente tiene que tener otro trabajo.
Un libre comercio es que todo producto llegue a todos los países, pero no siempre esta la escusa de impuestos, o etc, pero la verdad es que impiden que llegue, para venderlo 10 o mas veces el valor y a si ellos ganan mas, ellos mismos comente el delito, y después se quejan de la piratería, son unos idiotas que se les subió la plata a la cabeza...
Que el compadre gane el caso y vuelva a crear un servidos de datos...
Saludos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I dont get it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I dont get it
What you are saying is it should be okay for people in some third world country to steal microsoft windows (for example) and give it away freely to everyone on earth, and since they are not US citizens they should not ever face any penalty (specifically if their nation allows them to steal it and give it away).
Now of course you could say "then microsoft stops doing business with that country" but that doesn't stop someone from using VPN's, TOR, nor anything else to circumvent that and buy a copy to give away free to everyone on earth... again without facing charges.
Get it now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brian Richard Allen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
United States District Court Eastern District of Virginia
Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse
401 Courthouse Square
Alexandria, VA 22314
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copying, on the other hand, would leave Dotcom with money.
Copying is not theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
KDC was charged by the US and a court date was set. The minute he didn't appear, the minute an extradition was required, thats called "failure to appear".
Seems most of you think the extradition process is a part of the US legal system. Its not. Nothing requires the US wait for an extradition.
Now here is the real kicker to all this. What if he wins the extradition battle in NZ? That means NZ won't send him to the US. HOWEVER that doesn't mean the US still doesn't see this as not appearing in court. And what if he looses and NZ does extradite him? Its STILL NOT KDC WILLFULLY ENTERING THE US TO FACE CHARGES.
No matter how you want to see this, the fact an extradition is needed AND the fact he is fighting that in NZ courts, BOTH mean according to US law, he has NOT appeared before our courts.
Failure to appear, means instant award to the prosecution just like it always means when someone doesn't willfully face charges. This is NOT the same as if he appeared or filed notions for VALID REASONS. Simply saying "I dont agree with the US and theirfore will fight extradition" is NOT a VALID LEGAL REASON TO NOT APPEAR IN A US COURT ROOM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If someone copies a digital file, it's theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a fair comparison. The Cli'tons are prima facie RICO-racketeering career mobsters. And Mr Dotcom has not so much set foot - ever - in America - let alone stolen anything there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If someone copies a digital file, it's theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
America's Feral Government Legally Stole Millions From Kim Dotcom
"Legalizing" a criminal action does not make it moral.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why wont he come to america
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: why wont he come to america
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No justice in the US.
Yes. The US legal system is not a justice system by any stretch, and the DoJ has already made it plain that they intend to exploit any advantage they have to destroy Dotcom.
Dotcom coming to the US would be paramount to getting a reserved cell in Camp Delta with always on bright lights and super-loud music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
weird
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Abuse of Power
It is symptomatic of the fact that for decades, already, the vast organized-criminal hordes that trade as the "Democratic" party, have infiltrated and have corrupted and systemically and systematically employ every aspect of America's every level of government and every level of its court,s to control people's lives and to loot and thieve and steal every Cent they can get their hands on.
Better pray that President Donald John Trump is able to keep his promise to "drain the swamp."
To rid America, that is, of the "Democrats" Deep State.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Abuse of Power
the usual illiterate crap from someone that can't read but somehow manages to write. Civil forfeiture was pushed again in the 80s from the Reagan administration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#Legal_origins
Be tter search before you claim something than to be an idiot at the end. Wonderful to find out that it was pushed from the Reagan administration in the 80s. So don't blame someone else now for the crap that civil forfeiture is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Abuse of Power
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/illiteracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
STOP THE BS!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: STOP THE BS!!!
These is real suffering going on in Hollywood and Broadway right now, thanks in large part to Kim Dot.CON.
An actor starting out their career in Hollywood these days is more likely to end up on the streets turning to drugs or prostitution because the acting jobs simply don't pay as much anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: STOP THE BS!!!
is KDC a moral person? probably not but its irrelevant. he did not actually break the law as it was at that time.
so your point means nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How wonderful to be able to know what others, thousands of miles away, are thinking and to own the criminal arrogance to, thus situated, try them for their thought crimes, convict them -- and sentence them to serve out their lives in prison.
At worst, Mr Dotcom might be civilly sued for the breach of copyright of which you write, whereas he has (by the Two-Bit Kapo/globalist, John Keys, acting on behalf of a corrupt "justice" system in a country Mr Dotcom has never visited) been arrested, harassed, bullied, threatened and abused and stripped of his wealth and of all of his possessions and of much of his liberty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theft of Intellectual property is a crime.
If individuals stealing software, music, & movies are shoplifters, then Kim Dotcom is a bank robber.
Because of Kim people in the Arts communities are suffering tremendously. Workers are being cut from studios because they are being robbed left and right by people like Kim. Thanks to this and pay cuts, an up and coming executive at a major studio may have to work for years or decades even before they can afford luxury automobiles or homes.
So yes, the FBI is doing the right thing here, because Kim stole that money from the hard working people of Hollywood, and he deserves to be punished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Theft of Intellectual property is a crime.
...Damn, you poor fucking baby! What First World problems you have!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maximum Poe
As every moral individual knows, stealing other people's intellectual work, whether that be music or movies, is the exact same crime as if you walked into a store and walked out with that music or movie. It's called shoplifting.
This is either brilliant You wouldn't download a bear level parody, or the most extreme interpretation of copyright maximalism.
And I can't tell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If DotCom can get to court..
Or will he get a chance for an independent court?
As far as Iv seen posted, everything done was ILLEGAL..
from Basic entrapment to Paying off another country to do the dirty work.
All this because the movie industry couldnt PROVE ANYTHING legally. And our gov. had/has no control over another nation..
IF' he is ever found not guilty, the USA gov. is going to need to pay ALLOT of money for lost profits and other inconveniences..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If DotCom can get to court..
If the United States can be held liable, it can be argued that it also held back cloud services for years, and owes reparations to the internet community at large for creating an environment in which cyber lockers could not be trusted to have immunity from politics.
Actually that could set an interesting precedent, if a belligerent nation could be held liable tothe international community for disrupting net services in an enemy country and the costs were high enough it could discourage the bomb-heavy form of warfare the United States is so fond of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If DotCom can get to court..
Yes but:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1Bhl3yjzsQ
I said: do we have a problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"infractions" tax
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
asset forfeiture
Our main fear is the constitutional convention fueled by the Koch brothers to actually change our constitution .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SHTF
This is the time we stock up. I've invested my savings into crypto this year. Been laddering btc and buying with fiat. Everything between 5.9k-7.6k is my entery.
The defenition of who is getting rich the next years are really fucking out there. The entier economy of the world can shift the next years. Leaving people like me to be the next stage investors of the world.
Crypto is the future. Buy BTC and stay in BTC if you're scared of the market. Read up on how you store them in a safe way. Do not trade alts until the bear market is over, unless you know wtf you are doing. Crypto really is a dog eat dog world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this kind of stuff is the reason TRUMP failed to keep the majority in the house because he didnt fix this fucking dictatorship shit that happens in the USA he would have had it so easy to do so just call the right people and let them go through all the legal horror that have gone oncsince President BUSH the mini took all the freedoms away and decided to TORTURE innocent people and BRAG ABOUT IT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BTC/USD
Just found this post on twitter and is BTC price is above $8k https://www.currency.wiki/btc_usd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The good news is Russia and China are meeting so lets hope they agree to nuke America doing the world a favor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]