Slashdot Mirror
Kim Dotcom's Assets Seizure Order Ruled "Null and Void"
thomst writes "Cnet's Greg Sandoval reports that New Zealand police filed for the wrong kind of restraining order--the kind that didn't allow for DotCom to have a court hearing prior to the seizure — and that was a mistake, according to a report in the New Zealand Herald. A court has now ruled that the restraining order that enabled police to seize his assets is 'null and void,' and a review of the mistakes made will soon be conducted by New Zealand's attorney general, according to the Herald. The paper noted that there's no guarantee that DotCom will prevail. His lawyers must prove the absence of good faith when the procedural error was made."
Does the local police force working under the direction and supervision of a foreign govt count as a 'procedural error' as well?
Just in the case that you're actually interested in the response, it's going to disappoint you : no. Imagine if that were true : you'd just have to cross a single jurisdiction line and you'd get away with any crime whatsoever. That doesn't quite work.
We have this thing called international treaties. These days, if you commit a crime, it doesn't really matter if the victim of said crime is in your own country or in another one. If the victim decides to sue, or a foreign state decides to sue (as in this case), they can do so (although relatively high minimum damage levels are enforced : you can't sue a foreignor for less than about $2000). With a big exception in the EU, the proceedings are executed according to local law (in civial matters), and there local laws apply (in the EU foreign treaties take precedence of local laws, even constitutions, so it's much worse there). Foreign states are special in that they can start both civil and criminal proceedings. You do need to have violated a local law : you can't sue a muslim for beating his wife nearly to death if he manages to get into Morocco was a pretty high-profile case recently (and maybe this law will change, something to do with a number of suicides in that country).
What is going on here is that the police has seized his property because they believe he has committed a criminal offence and that someone (e.g. Time Warner) will seek damages, and has a reasonable chance to get them. They believe there is a big chance that given the chance, Kim Dotcom will cut and run (apparently he's done that before in Germany), and the judge agreed with that.
One of the things any lawyer should tell you : if you violate a legal principle that applies both in your country and in a foreign country, but only has foreign "victims", you won't be protected by jurisdiction limits. So the simple thing is : in America, insult whatever political figure or religion or ideology you like, and don't worry about morons like North Korea or Saudi Arabia suing you. Don't violate American law, even if you're "only hurting" foreigners.
If you want to change copyright, by all means go ahead. However if you try to do this through the court, you will fail, and you best be prepared to be bankrupt for the rest of your life. Any real action will be played out in congress. Democracy does not mean you do what you want, rather that the majority of the country, represented by freely chosen congresscritters, has to agree you're allowed to do it. If you can't convince enough of your fellow Americans (ie. 150 million), it's not going to happen.