Kim Dotcom's Assets Seizure Order Ruled "Null and Void"

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Kim Dotcom's Assets Seizure Order Ruled "Null and Void"

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday March 18, 2012 @04:54AM from the whoops-our-bad dept.

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."

24 of 139 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I'm divided by schnikies79 · 2012-03-18 04:58 · Score: 1, Insightful

Kim Dotcom is an absolute fucking tool, and I have ZERO respect for him. That said, if the authorities screwed up, they screwed up. Return his stuff.

--
Gone!
1. Re:I'm divided by PieceOfShitAndroid · 2012-03-18 05:10 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Whether or not he is not a tool is irrelevant. His business has already been destroyed. What is important the fact that there is no rule of law. Governments have too much power. This needs to change.
2. Re:I'm divided by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-18 05:15 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  How can you possible be defending Kimble? He's not some patriotic defender of our IP rights. He has, time and time again, setup illegal businesses, had the government stop them and move on with a slap on wrists. He is a crook. It so happens that this time, he was running a file sharing site. But between his credit card thefts, his stock scams and his selling of cracked games to pirate factories, the guy will always find some new crime to make a fortune off of. And I do mean a fortune.
  I for one, am praying that Kimble is jailed for good, and stops giving a bad name to REAL defenders of IP rights and file sharers.
3. Re:I'm divided by jdev · 2012-03-18 05:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Right, return his stuff after the damage is already done. Megauploads is gone. Nothing they can do now can repair their business.
  And to be honest, I think that was the point of this whole exercise. I don't think our government cared about making any kind of legal precedent here. They mostly just wanted to show that they had the ability to take any of these guys down and went after a high profile business to do it.
4. Re:I'm divided by GmExtremacy · 2012-03-18 05:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  How can you possible be defending Kimble?
  I'd defend anyone from what I believe is abuse. Mentioning his name will not change that for me. That was just a general statement.
5. Re:I'm divided by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-18 05:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "Easy cases make bad law."
  They go after Kim Dotcom because they think they can make an unsympathetic defendant of him. That's part of why all the trumped up bullshit in the complaint vs. "Megaupload" as well (constant words like "mega conspiracy", "child porn", and so on created to scare the crap out of the grand jury).
  If you don't defend him, though, then that sets a precedent and other people get fucked over by the bad precedent. Why do you think the MafIAA run away from court every time they look like they are about to lose a case? It's because settling or "dropping" the case doesn't create precedent, but losing in court would.
6. Re:I'm divided by Charliemopps · 2012-03-18 05:42 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  When they take YOUR rights away, they start by taking them away from someone you find distasteful. Often it is the mistake of the naive to think that Rights only apply to the good and just citizen. What they do not realize is that, if you can make a distinction regarding who deserves certain Rights and who does not, it is only a matter of time before the government finds a way to make that very distinction against you. Rights are not rights unless they apply to everyone, equally.
7. Re:I'm divided by Znork · 2012-03-18 05:46 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Mr. Dotcom is hardly a hero but any money he makes is unlikely to finance the corruption in governments and trade treaties we see. The money he makes isn't going to turn the world into a police state. It may go towards scamming, but scammers do not usually have storm troopers crashing into the homes of private citizens.
  Any and all ways that deprive the intellectual monopoly corps of revenue are good. Even if it means creeps like Dotcom get money.
8. Re:I'm divided by TheRaven64 · 2012-03-18 06:06 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's a very small step between bending the law to go after people we know are doing something illegal to bending the law to go after people the police or people in power don't like. That's the point of the rule of law: sometimes it protects asshats, but that's better than it not protecting anyone.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
9. Re:I'm divided by blahplusplus · 2012-03-18 06:31 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "How can you possible be defending Kimble? He's not some patriotic defender of our IP rights. He has, time and time again, setup illegal businesses, had the government stop them and move on with a slap on wrists. He is a crook."
  You mean like most modern businesses? At this point there is little difference between kimble and what is the status quo for the corporate sector. You're blind otherwise.
10. Re:I'm divided by Asic+Eng · 2012-03-18 06:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If we want to live in a society which respects the rule of law, then the law also protects assholes, and taking that protection away from them takes it away from everybody.
11. Re:I'm divided by sjames · 2012-03-18 06:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Insisting on due process is defending ALL of us. If he's as bad as you say (and that's likely), then he can be nailed to the wall without endangering the rights of everyone by following due process to the letter.
  I would have to say this was a very serious violation. Everyone should have known what due process was here, but somehow, nobody seems to have noticed that they were doing the wrong thing based on the wrong paperwork being filed? I'm supposed to believe that? The judge should be especially ashamed for being so quick with the rubber stamp that he didn't notice.
12. Re:I'm divided by pscottdv · 2012-03-18 06:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  How can you possible be defending Kimble? He's not some patriotic defender of our IP rights. He has, time and time again, setup illegal businesses, had the government stop them and move on with a slap on wrists. He is a crook.
  Exactly, only honest people have the right to expect due process and the rule of law.
  People who share copyrighted works shouldn't be protected by the rule of law!
  
  --
  this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice
13. Re:I'm divided by Fallingwater · 2012-03-18 07:16 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Right, return his stuff after the damage is already done. Megauploads is gone. Nothing they can do now can repair their business.
  Megaupload was/is the most famous sharing site, and all this buzz around it after the arrest/shutdown only made it more widely known. If Dotcom can bend the laws enough to restart it without getting thrown in jail again, he'll be making thrice as much money from Megaupload as he was before.
14. Re:I'm divided by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-18 08:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Who else wishes that 1/10th of the effort spenton getting Kim Dotcom Was spent on investigating at LEAST 1 corporate banker or organization behind the recent bank debacle in the states. These "folk" caused far, far, far more damage than Dotcom did.
  It just goes to show that no matter how corrupt an entity is, if the entity has congress backing, it can get away with just about anything.
  DISGRACEFUL SYSTEM.
  AC
15. Re:I'm divided by smash · 2012-03-18 13:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  How can you possible be defending Kimble? He's not some patriotic defender of our IP rights
  Because, irrespective of WHO it was, the police has destroyed his business BEFORE proving him guilty in a court of law. This is not the way the justice system is designed to work. IF he is found innocent (and its a legally grey area), then how do the police propose to compensate him to losses incurred?
  This could, and should have been taken to court without the drama/show for the media, and IF he was found guilty of anything THEN his assets get seized.
  
  I for one, am praying that Kimble is jailed for good, and stops giving a bad name to REAL defenders of IP rights and file sharers.
  This is nothing to do with IP rights, it is to do with a man being jailed, and having his assets seized without a fair trial. Whether or not he is guilty or not is irrelevant - due process was not followed and this is a major concern.
  
  --
  I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
probably won't help by v1 · 2012-03-18 05:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

it's essentially impossible to prove "bad faith" on something like this without a "smoking gun" like an email mentioning how they're just going to take a shortcut or something.
IMHO, the whole concept of "it's ok to do something illegal as long as you had good intentions" is not something that should work for the law, ever. It rarely helps the citizen. ("good samaritan" laws being the only common exception)
The whole point of having legal requirements is to force them to make sure they have their ducks in a row before exercising their powers. Once you say "well it's OK if you violate someone's rights, as long as it was an honest mistake", it opens a huge barn door to abuse. Laws should always be slanted in favor of the accused, to lower the incidence of abuse and mistaken application.

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
1. Re:probably won't help by Flavio · 2012-03-18 05:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Once you say "well it's OK if you violate someone's rights, as long as it was an honest mistake", it opens a huge barn door to abuse.
  And this is why politicians consistently play dumb and ignorant. People can be incarcerated for being corrupt, but not for being unintelligent.
2. Re:probably won't help by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-18 05:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Hardly.
  it's essentially impossible to prove "bad faith" on something like this without a "smoking gun" like an email mentioning how they're just going to take a shortcut or something.
  The entire purpose of all of the "paperwork" and everything else was to engage in classic police state tactics - namely, "sieze now, don't explain till later" bullshit.
  There was absolutely no reason to not pursue normal court procedures, in which Dotcom would have been able to have legal representation every step of the way, save that the US government wanted him put under lock and key quickly, quietly, and without the right to self-defence to which he was legally entitled under both NZ and US law. This has been proven in the public documentation of how the raid was conducted, how the US authorities were "overseeing" the raid, and how the various siezure orders were given along with the US government stepping in to try to prevent him from being granted bail.
  This also extends to how MegaUpload was shut down without warning and how many people lost their own legitimately uploaded documents stored on the service. The US government doesn't give a crap about things like "laws", especially those thuggish asswipes from the FBI.
  The whole pattern is in bad faith, period.
3. Re:probably won't help by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-18 05:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  We both know you're right.
  The challenge is having the NZ courts rule there was bad faith when the US is clearly manipulating the entire process.
4. Re:probably won't help by TheRaven64 · 2012-03-18 06:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Being too stupid or ignorant to do your job properly ought to count as negligence, possibly wilful negligence if you had the opportunity to educate yourself but chose not to.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
5. Re:probably won't help by sjames · 2012-03-18 07:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It is entirely possible and it practically proves itself. The judge is implicitly signing that he has read and understood the warrant when he signs it. Clearly he didn't. He had a couple months to notice the news and realize that the necessary hearing never happened. He never came forward. The police knew what the right procedure was but clearly didn't care (they HAD to notice).
  The problem is that proving "bad faith" in the sense that the courts will lift a finger to actually uphold justice cannot be done. Even the smoking gun, bloody shirt, gory dagger with fingerprints on it, AND video of the murder won't be enough to meet that "threshold of proof".
Re:When will they seize Time Warner's assets? by davester666 · 2012-03-18 07:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

Does the local police force working under the direction and supervision of a foreign govt count as a 'procedural error' as well?

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Re:When will they seize Time Warner's assets? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-18 11:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

Dude - Kevin Rudd is a member of the AUSTRALIAN Labor party. Nothing to do with NZ. John Key (NZ's Prime Minister) is probably the most US friendly leader we've had in a decade.