US Gov't Says They Can Still Freeze Megaupload Assets If the Case Is Dismissed

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Gov't Says They Can Still Freeze Megaupload Assets If the Case Is Dismissed

Posted by Soulskill on Friday July 27, 2012 @04:26PM from the taking-your-toys-and-going-home dept.

The Megaupload case continues, and on Friday attorneys for the U.S. government made some interesting claims. They were in court to argue against a request to dismiss the indictment against Megaupload that was raised on the grounds that Megaupload has no U.S. address. After a debate about jurisdiction and precedent, this happened: "The government also argued that it could keep Megaupload in legal limbo indefinitely. 'None of the cases impose a time limit on service,' the government's attorney told the judge. Therefore, the government believes it can leave the indictment hanging over the company's head, and keep its assets frozen, indefinitely. Not only that, but the government believes it can continue to freeze Megaupload's assets and paralyze its operations even if the judge grants the motion to dismiss. That's because in the government's view, the assets are the proceeds of criminal activity and the prosecution against founder Kim Dotcom will still be pending. The fact that the assets are in the name of Megaupload rather than its founder is of no consequence, the government claimed."

36 of 530 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Yeah Okay by TemperedAlchemist · 2012-07-27 16:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

Telling the court that you're going to circumvent the law in the case you lose probably isn't going to be so swell.
1. Re:Yeah Okay by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-07-27 16:33 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Telling the court that you're going to circumvent the law in the case you lose probably isn't going to be so swell.
  
  Except when you are Uncle Sam
  
  ... just saying ...
  
  --
  Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
2. Re:Yeah Okay by Mashiki · 2012-07-27 16:36 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Yeah pretty interesting view there huh? Not only are they saying that they're above the law. But they're saying that the highest law in the land, is no longer the constitution and bill of rights. But the DOJ, and the whim of whoever is in charge. Yeah ... now that's going to go over very well, especially about the time it starts hitting appeal courts.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
3. Re:Yeah Okay by pla · 2012-07-27 17:10 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Guilty until proven....who needs to prove anything anymore?
  
  Welcome to the world of "civil forfeiture". Property has no rights, so charge the property with the crime. The DEA's done it for about two decades now.
  
  That said, the present case does seem to go a bit further than even that - At least in normal civil forfeiture, If by some miracle you can prove that the property had nothing to do with a crime, you can theoretically get it back; With Megaupload, the government hasn't even allowed for that nigh-impossible standard of winning.
4. Re:Yeah Okay by DViper01 · 2012-07-27 17:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  To me as a European it is baffling how much sh*t you Americans take from your government and never take action. Since G.W. one law or incident after another is passed against the interest of the population and the only thing people do is complain a bit on the internet. Have you guys ever heard of the possibility of demonstration, strike and not voting for the dumbest b*tch around? Sorry, that was emotional but that's how I feel when I read stuff like that. Now mod me to hell.
5. Re:Yeah Okay by superdave80 · 2012-07-27 17:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Since G.W. one law or incident after another is passed against the interest of the population...
  Oh, this has been going on WAAAAAAY before ol' Dubya stepped foot into the White House...
6. Re:Yeah Okay by jamesh · 2012-07-27 17:42 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  remove a govt that is TOO corrupt and can NOT be fixed
  How do you see this removal of government taking place? Sure, you could maybe round up enough of your militia to kill them all, but what then? Decades of education neglect has left you with a nation of morons and I guarantee that whatever you try and replace your government with, it will be worse. There are some drug lords in Mexico who might like to take a stab at leadership, if that helps.
  I'm not disagreeing that there is a problem, and it needs to be fixed, and I don't know how you would fix it, but the moment you get out your guns and start shooting you'll have much bigger problems than you have now.
  btw, kudo's on not posting anonymously when you are publicly inviting violent revolution. If you don't hear hammers batter down the door (you'd better run!) in the next few hours then you don't have it as bad as some countries.
7. Re:Yeah Okay by dryeo · 2012-07-27 19:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Wasn't it Andrew Jackson who, when the supreme court ruled against him, made a comment along the lines of "and with what army are they going to enforce that ruling with?" and proceeded to ignore the courts ruling.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
8. Re:Yeah Okay by Aighearach · 2012-07-27 19:37 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  It is actually just a tyrannical prosecutor, not the whole government.
  It is a difficult issue, telling prosecutors what to do from on high, or giving them free reign to exercise their professional judgment.
  Luckily, the courts aren't usually impressed by self-important prosecutors.
9. Re:Yeah Okay by RabidTimmy · 2012-07-27 20:43 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Maybe he meant George Washington?
10. Re:Yeah Okay by lexsird · 2012-07-27 22:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  At the risk of being waterboarded along with you in Gitmo, I will chime in on this one.
  An overt revolution will fail badly. They have changed vital laws that protected us from the military crushing insurrection, so that they can now use it. It used to be a civil matter that the military had no business in. But we seen violation of that law back in the Clinton administration when they rolled tanks on Waco Texas. Since they seen we are too stupid or lazy to call them on it or hold their feet to the fire, they have grown great big balls and down right changed everything. Read about "Posse Comitatus Act" to get the gist of it and it's changes.
  Not to mention, I think we signed the UN Small Arms Treaty Friday, and your arms will be registered, which the next step is to take them. It's how Hitler did it, I'm sure they are apt students. So any thoughts of an armed revolt are seriously fucked, even if you did succeed, the UN would step in as well, then you would have to kill all of them as well. As soon as you start that, we will be invaded big time and have to go to some kind of scorched Earth policy to get rid of them all.
  Now where are you going to recruit for that kind of madness? Surely not from the fat, retarded, undereducated, lazy sons of bitches here. Do you think this waste of god damned space xbox generation is going to get off the couch to fight for something they have no clue about? Perhaps if football or pizza was threatened they might roll over and fart, but give it up concerning anything else.
  Now I have studied this subject for a while and pondered it hard. There are ways to bring about vast changes but it's still fucked. Why? We already have an army here fucking with us from the Mexican Drug lords. Their god damn gangs would run amuck, they already have their hand deep in the asses of cities like LA. We've seen how they have threatened the medical weed shops with impunity, and some speculate that they influenced LA's city counsel to shut down those shops.
  We've seen evidence of South of the border intent on retaking parts of America. Sure we all like to ignore this, and we can because we have a military that would kill every last fucking one of them and dance on their graves. But if we are fighting, they will stick a knife in our collective backs. Don't shit yourself for a second that they wouldn't. They already fuck up our border patrol and the people of that region and our pussy politicians are too afraid of the Mexican vote to do a damn thing about it.
  Yes, we have a corrupt, fucked in the head government, but at least it's OUR corrupt, fucked in the head government. That means that we can fix the damn thing without genocide. This requires YOU and all of your little buddies to get off your asses and get politically active. This means that you need to be active during what they call "the grass roots" and you have to drag everyone you know and some you don't, kicking and screaming to the polls. You need to apply vast amounts of social pressure on "non-voters" to do their damn civic duty. We have amazing, unprecedented communications tools to get out the word, to organize and to act politically.
  It takes brains, patience and hard work. There is no "fast food fix" for this. It didn't fall apart over night, nor will it be fixed overnight either. Until we have exhausted these tools and these means of peaceful and productive means of political change, don't be an asshole. Don't worry, if it's truly fucked, it can be dropped like a house of cards. But that is one hellish nightmare that we need to avoid at all costs. Humpty Dumpty doesn't go back together again, remember that.
  So do us all a favor, and park the "armed revolt" thought in the garage. Save that "pissed off-ness" to drive your fat ass off the couch to get out and vote.
  
  --
  Take the Red Pill.
11. Re:Yeah Okay by amiga3D · 2012-07-27 23:18 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  He is supposed to have made this statement concerning the decision in Worcester V. Georgia (1832), "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" There is some dispute whether he actually said this or not but it sounds like something he would have said.
12. Re:Yeah Okay by hairyfeet · 2012-07-28 00:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  To me the interesting part is NOT that they believe "I am the law!" which frankly that has been the case for decades, its that they are so comfortable with the machines in place that let them hang onto power, propaganda, the courts, the military, that frankly they don't even think they have to pretend anymore.
  If you look back at American history you can spot where it all changed, and that was the end of WWII. At the beginning the USA? Had the 39th largest military in the world, we are talking a joke of a military, with WWI era tanks, 25 year old ships, there just wasn't any money there. At the end of WWII all that changed when those megacorps realized their money train was about to end, which is where the massive amount of lobbying we see now came from.
  It didn't take the other corps long to see that the military industrial complex was making out like bandits, but some were slower to catch on than others, particularly Hollywood. Think the bundle deals over the theaters or payola would have been broken up if Hollywood would have paid them off? Not a chance in hell. After Betamax they learned though, that's when Jack Valenti and his ilk started seeing how many senators and congressmen they could buy, hell they even own the VP now.
  Which is how we get to where we are now. Somebody high up in the DoJ must have promised Dotcom's head on a platter, probably got offered a swwwweeeet cushy corporate lobbying job when he/she gets out and damn it there aren't gonna give that sucker up! The fact that the POTUS isn't saying a damned word nor is anybody else high up just shows you how rotten the whole place is, buying power is a billion dollar business and nobody is gonna risk losing THEIR checks. The worst part? Not a damned thing you can do about it, both parties are bought and paid for, the system is designed to make sure a third party has no chance in hell, so all you can do is wait for the massive corruption to turn us into another Greece or Zimbabwe.
  Because when we've gotten to the point the DoJ doesn't even have to pretend to give a shit about the law and nobody cares, the MSM sleeps on, and nobody in power says boo? There is no point in even pretending its a democracy anymore, its strictly justice for those with the most cash and apparently Dotcom don't have enough blank checks to hand out to buy himself any.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
13. Re:Yeah Okay by tmosley · 2012-07-28 00:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Utter bullshit. Land is registered to be TAXED. Cars are registered to be TAXED (if they weren't, it would be a one time thing, not a YEARLY one). Children are registered so local government can get tax money from the Federal and State governments. Marriages are registered because the state thinks it is a church, and secondarily because married people are granted special privileges in our crazy nonsense quasi-theocracy.
14. Re:Yeah Okay by lexsird · 2012-07-28 04:10 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I'm not so optimistic anymore about our own soldiers firing on us. I followed OWS closely, mostly to see what kind of reaction our officials would take, and they didn't fail to disappoint me. When I see pictures of civilians peacefully protesting and getting manhandled, shot in the face with tear gas, etc by a heavy handed militant police force, my gut and heart just sinks. When NYPD and it's fucked in head mayor shoved journalists out of the way, contained them and arrested them, I knew we were and still are seriously fucked.
  The whole "I don't agree with what you say, but defend to the death your right to say it." mantra has become a fucking joke after that. The media proved itself to be easily manipulated and a tool for propaganda against the movement. Now you don't have to agree with the OWS people, but if you take a look at how it was handled, it was all damn wrong. Imagine if it was your axe to grind and you and your ilk got treated that way.
  I would have to wonder what would happen if an armed group such as the Tea Party staged protests like OWS, but armed like they have been in a lot of their meetings.
  
  --
  Take the Red Pill.
15. Re:Yeah Okay by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2012-07-28 06:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Doesn't bother me any.
  It's about time we had it out with the government over this "we decide it's involved in a criminal act, and therefore may keep it forever" bullshit.
  It's one thing to find a bloody gun by a body or something. It's another to seize someone's money or property, declare it ill-gotten, then fail to bring it to court with the owner standing right there.
  Bzzzt! Sorry. You either take it to court within a reasonable period of time (the Constitution defines this quite well, thank you) and prove it, or you have to give it back.
  Sadly, we may need a constitutional amendment to force this.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
The goverment by santax · 2012-07-27 16:30 · Score: 5, Informative

should be brought to justice... This is insane and a clear message from the government to everyone: You have NO rights at all! Time to fight terrorism people and it starts at home.
1. Re:The goverment by geminidomino · 2012-07-27 17:49 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  But, don't be in any hurry to violence. Use the four boxes in defense of liberty in the order established. At this point, Ghandi achieves more than Patrick Henry. Don't provide a convenient excuse for the government to declare martial law and roll out the Nat. Guard.
  But if we are finally forced to the last box, don't forget ol' Pat.
  "Ballot" was rendered inert as soon as we adopted the two-party, first-past-the-post system.
  "Soap" stop being useful with the incestuous relationship between Corporates and Government.
  So tell me how this story isn't pretty compelling evidence that "Jury" is FUBAR, too?
2. Re:The goverment by BlueStrat · 2012-07-27 23:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I've spoken to a couple marine types after they've seen real action.. scary shit. They have little-to-no qualms attacking civilians if they are ordered to; for some the distinction between our civilians /or/ others' civilians doesn't even exist.
  I grew up on military bases. I know a lot of military personnel, even up to a couple of full-bird colonels and two generals. We've actually had this discussion. I've yet to find any that would fire on US citizens, unless they were like radical Islamic types or similar.
  If it came down to the government ordering the US military to "occupy" US cities and towns, round people up into camps, and basically carry out a "government takeover" and provide armed pacification and suppression against civilians, they would refuse, arrest the ones issuing the orders, and even launch an assault on government-loyalist positions if need be if things were that bad.
  Google "Oath Keepers". There are many more that feel the same way but are reluctant to expose their beliefs, positions in the power structure, and/or telegraph any possible actions they might need to take in a desperate situation. Be assured a sizable chunk of the US NG and military will throw their lot (and their lives and military assets) in with the civilians in the event of such a takeover attempt.
  What the real worry is for me are the treaties and agreements (both open and secret) with other countries that could provide for bringing in foreign troops for civilian pacification and rebellion suppression.
  Still, the US government and any forces they employ will face the same threat that prevented both Germany and Japan from seriously considering invasion/occupation. A rifle behind every blade of grass, and knowing the kind of hardware hackers, etc, we have here in the US these days, new and ingenious IEDs lining every freeway, side-road, sidewalk, and footpath, and death waiting behind every window and door, plus our own home-brew drones. That's not even counting the military weapons and other assets that will surely be "liberated".
  Unless they are willing to simply kill off ~70%-80% of the US population right from the start with WMDs, an occupation of the US would make Vietnam, Afghanistan, or any of the bloodiest campaigns of WW1 or WW2 look like a stroll in the park. Can you imagine? Former cops, gang-bangers, and mixed military all forming into ad-hoc combat units and working together against a common threat. Not the way I'd choose to unite the country, but revolution and upheaval does make for strange bedfellows when the feces strikes the rotary air circulation device.
  I most fervently hope and pray that violence can be avoided. It would be such a waste of life and potential, and an unspeakable tragedy for so many. Sadly, sometimes those who lust for power and control make avoiding it impossible.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
3. Re:The goverment by BlueStrat · 2012-07-27 23:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It interests me that everyone here speaks of the US Military the same way they speak of corporations - as one giant hive mind with no dissent within the ranks. News flash: the military, like a corporation, is comprised of people who don't all think the same. In the event of the military being directed to take arms against civilians - of the same country no less - it is quite likely there will be increased instances of mutiny. The results would be ... cataclysmic.
  Exactly. See my post above. A significant fraction of US NG/military will break ranks and join the civilians, bringing along their military weapons, training/experience, organizational structure, and other assets. A full-out conflict in such a scenario would be, as you say, cataclysmic. Likely cataclysmic for the entire world as well.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Wait what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-27 16:30 · Score: 5, Interesting

Guilty until proven innocent?
1. Re:Wait what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-27 19:06 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You mean Guilty even if proven innocent.
Who needs the law? by margeman2k3 · 2012-07-27 16:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

Who needs things like laws and due process when the government can just shut down your business without them?
Face it by virb67 · 2012-07-27 16:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Face it. This is no longer a country of laws. The powers that be do what they want, how they want, whenever they want. Get used to it.
Re:Why?? by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-07-27 16:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

What the US govt got from this?

The US government does not benefit anything from this, but on the other hand, those who are paying the politicians, ie, the king makers get to thumb their collective noses down to the rest of us

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
The Forefeiture Racket by geoffrobinson · 2012-07-27 16:46 · Score: 5, Informative

This happens with citizens all the time.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/26/the-forfeiture-racket/singlepage (Behind a paywall, bu the first paragraph will give you the gist.)
You get arrested for a crime. Your assets are seized. Charges are dropped or you are found not guilty. They don't give you your assets back.

--
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
What about the 6th Amentment? by RPI+Geek · 2012-07-27 16:46 · Score: 4, Interesting

Doesn't this violate the Speedy Trial Clause?

--

- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
1. Re:What about the 6th Amentment? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-27 17:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Bart: The Constitution? I'm pretty sure the PATRIOT Act killed it to ensure our freedoms.
That's Not a Good Message by Bob9113 · 2012-07-27 16:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

Not only that, but the government believes it can continue to freeze Megaupload's assets and paralyze its operations even if the judge grants the motion to dismiss.
The message they are sending seems to be: If you do something that might piss off a powerful enough lobby in the United States, even if the legal system sides with you, get your money out of the country.
That doesn't seem like a very smart message to send.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Here's another article by geoffrobinson · 2012-07-27 16:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-government-is-the-looter/2012/05/18/gIQAUIKVZU_story.html
It's much worse than what I've said. Some people commit a crime on your property and they seize your property.

--
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-07-27 16:54 · Score: 5, Informative

Comment removed based on user account deletion
If they do, they're breaking the law. by jcr · 2012-07-27 17:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

US Constitution, Amendment V:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
An executive branch agency just deciding to keep your property because they don't like the outcome of their attempt to indict you is not the "due process of law". In fact, it's quite the opposite: it's grand larceny.
While I hold no illusions about the US government's willingness to break the law and violate the constitution whenever they find it convenient to do so, the constitution remains the entirety of the legal basis for its existence. When the government violates the constitution, it does not act as the agent of the people, but as usurpers of the people's sovereign power.
-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Expired by symbolset · 2012-07-27 17:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Biden brought the Hollywood money back in the day, and that got him the VP slot and his **AA bosses some seats in the Justice Department, including Mr. MacBride who's working Kim Dotcom today. Despite the whole "supporting your vice president" thing, that's a liability moving into new elections. I don't want to think the O-man needs to or wants to make these sacrifices as an incumbent. He's a constitutional scholar and I think, a geek like us. At least I hope so.
BTW: I really hate the politicization of /. during crazy season. And yet here I am contributing to it.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Power and Arrogance -- a poisonous combo by Jerry · 2012-07-27 17:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

ALL the branches of the US government have become corrupt outlaws who have no clue as to what the Bill of Rights means. It's behavior for the last 8 years is a dictionary example of "power corrupts", made worse by the insufferable arrogance they display.

--
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Re:Not quite by Kalriath · 2012-07-27 22:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

Except that most of said assets are outside the US, and the target of the investigation is also outside the US. The US Government had no jurisdiction to seize the assets in the first place. They also have no jurisdiction to hold onto the assets if the case is dismissed. In fact, they have no jurisdiction to prosecute either.

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Re:Long way of saying by amiga3D · 2012-07-27 23:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

Libertarians are not anarchists although they are so far removed from the fascism of the Right and the communism of the Left that they must seem anarchists. Both the Republicans and the Democrats stand for Governmental control of the Citizens to the nth degree. The sheer volume of laws on the books in this country guarantees that every single citizen is a criminal.