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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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
"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.
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.
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.