US Wins Appeal In Battle To Extradite Kim Dotcom

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Wins Appeal In Battle To Extradite Kim Dotcom

Posted by Soulskill on Friday March 1, 2013 @01:48AM from the be-our-guest-be-our-guest-be-our-guest dept.

Dr Max sends this excerpt from an AP report: "U.S. prosecutors won a New Zealand court victory Friday in their battle to extradite Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom and three colleagues accused of facilitating massive copyright fraud through the now-defunct online file-sharing site. The appeals court overturned an earlier ruling that would have allowed Dotcom and the others broad access to evidence in the case against them at the time of their extradition hearing, which is scheduled for August. The appeals court ruled that extensive disclosure would bog down the process and that a summary of the U.S. case would suffice. Dotcom says he's innocent and can't be held responsible for those who chose to use the site to illegally download songs or movies."

45 of 175 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too by crazyjj · 2013-03-01 01:48 · Score: 5, Funny

Good boy! Him roll over! Can you sit? Can you sit? Come on, boy...sit!

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
1. Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too by Dunbal · 2013-03-01 01:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I can't wait for China to start pushing for the extradition of US citizens for breaking some of its more restrictive internet laws. I mean fair game, right?
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
2. Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-01 02:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The extradition is complete. Everything else is just a formality. The court just ruled that Dotcom isn't going to be able to use any real evidence to defend himself. Now New Zealand has to follow their treaty obligations and send him to a US kangaroo court where he will face 100,000 charges and a million year jail term (or 2 years in jail on a plea agreement). He's fucked. If I were him, I'd think about escaping to a country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US.
3. Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2013-03-01 02:32 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  New Zealand has no other choice but to hand Dotcom over. If they don't . . . no more local economy boosting Hollywood films will be made in New Zealand.
  I really don't give a rat's ass if Dotcom is convicted or not. However, I find the way that this is being done a bit disturbing. No full access to the evidence against him? This sounds rather like a Soviet denunciation legal procedure.
  What do our "I am a Kiwi lawyer" readers have to say about the right of the accused to see the evidence against him in New Zealand? Maybe this is normal there, and nothing special they are doing to railroad Dotcom.
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
4. Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-01 02:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's only fair game when China has the might and firepower of the US, which it does not.
  So therefore the US tell others what to do and you will obey because otherwise we can own and destroy your ass. Case closed.
  USA.
5. Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too by mwvdlee · 2013-03-01 02:39 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The only thing the US has won here, is a denial for Kim Dotcom to access all available evidence while he would still have an opportunity to affect that evidence.
  It has little to do with the actual extradition request itself.
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
6. Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too by Chrisq · 2013-03-01 02:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's only fair game when China has the might and firepower of the US, which it does not.
  So therefore the US tell others what to do and you will obey because otherwise we can own and destroy your ass. Case closed.
  USA.
  So when they do it will be fair?
7. Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too by Luckyo · 2013-03-01 02:53 · Score: 2
  
  Empire to empire relationship is governed by different kind of realpolitik then empire to vassal state.
8. Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too by serviscope_minor · 2013-03-01 03:03 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If they don't . . . no more local economy boosting Hollywood films will be made in New Zealand.
  I doubt that. The movie companies are always looking at the bottom line. New Zealand offers the right landscapes at the right price with first world infrastructure. If it was cheaper elsewhere they'd already be going elsewhere. I very much doubt they'd pay significantly more just to make this point.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
9. Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-01 03:58 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The country that can't even destroy a bunch of camel jockeys in Iraq and Afghanistan. Please. But America has always reminded me of a spoiled child, stamping its foot on the ground and threatening to make a scene if he doesn't get what he wants.
10. Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too by pscottdv · 2013-03-01 04:01 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  That's the dirty little secret about federal charges in the U.S. Federal court rules don't require the prosecution to hand over their evidence until the trial unlike state courts where the accused has a chance to see the evidence against him- or herself and prepare a defence. And the minimum penalties are always enormous.
  That's why federal charges are so highly feared in the U.S. and it's why almost all federal cases are pleaded out.
  http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21570742-how-mandatory-minimum-sentences-distort-plea-bargaining-thumb-scale
  The article is about a different issue, but it describes the problem.
  
  --
  this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice
11. Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too by Dunbal · 2013-03-01 04:01 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Keep that in mind for when you are a vassal state. America is only 300 million people, not even a huge population anymore. It used to dominate economically but haven't you heard? China has now surpassed the US as the largest trader in the world. While the US is celebrating 0.7% growth, China is growing 8-10% every year. They're not even close to being done yet. Don't worry mandarin is not too hard to learn.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
12. Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2013-03-01 04:07 · Score: 2
  
  The US & china would have to have an extradition agreement first.
  If that were in place and a us company had broken the Chinese laws while doing business in China, then yes I think that would be fair.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_the_United_States#Countries_with_diplomatic_relations_but_no_extradition_treaty
  
  --
  Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
13. Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too by BitZtream · 2013-03-01 04:16 · Score: 2
  
  No it didn't.
  The court ruled that a summary of the evidence was enough to go to trial and that Kim isn't going to be allowed to tie the case up 'looking at evidence'.
  They just stopped one of his stall tactics.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
14. Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too by ShanghaiBill · 2013-03-01 04:32 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Don't worry mandarin is not too hard to learn.
  As someone who has learned to speak Mandarin, I can say that this is not true. I have heard that it takes about 20 weeks of full time study for a native English speaker to be able to communicate in basic Spanish, but 80 weeks to reach the same level in Mandarin. I think this is about right. Mandarin is hard. The grammar is simple, but there are a lot of homophones and weird idioms, and worst of all is the tones. Young kids can learn them, but they are almost impossible for an adult whose brain has already congealed. After years of study, I can order in a restaurant and understand tech-talk, but I struggle with casual small talk, and I almost never understand the jokes.
15. Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too by ari_j · 2013-03-01 04:47 · Score: 2
  
  Keep in mind this is an extradition matter. At an extradition hearing, the issues are basically limited to (1) whether you are the person being sought by the other jurisdiction and (2) whether the charges in the other jurisdiction are the type of charges for which a person can be extradited. I am not as familiar with international extradition as I am interstate extradition within the United States, and certainly there will be specific rules spelled out in an extradition treaty between New Zealand and the United States (possibly by way of the UN, for all I know). But those are the real issues: are you the right guy and are the charges extraditable. The extradition hearing is held in and under the procedural law of the court in New Zealand.
  Once arraigned in the court where the charges are pending (the United States federal court), the issue becomes whether you are guilty of the offense charged. And the evidence against you is relevant to that issue. The evidence is largely not relevant to whether you can be extradited. And that's essentially what it sounds like the New Zealand court concluded.
16. Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too by Hatta · 2013-03-01 05:01 · Score: 2
  
  What exactly are you concerned about? Describe a situation where providing the evidence against Dotcom to Dotcom would decrease justice. Give me one specific plausible hypothetical.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
17. Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too by Tokolosh · 2013-03-01 07:05 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Once the principle of the Bush Doctrine is accepted, then what qualifies, as you ask? Every country will have its own definition, and China's will certainly be different. Even if some international convention is agreed, it will be bypassed. The point is, the US has asserted the right, and others will follow. I contend that this precedent is worse than not implementing the doctrine in the first place, and accepting that the occasional baddie gets away.
  Apparently Congress has declared war on Al Qaeda. The US has signed the Geneva Convention. Does the US comply with the convention? I don't think rendered detainees were only asked for their name, rank and number.
  
  Well for better or for worse, this is a globally accepted policy (e.g. UN, NATO, SEATO, ) that resulted in 9/11.
  Fixed that for you.
  
  --
  Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
18. Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too by bug1 · 2013-03-01 08:44 · Score: 2
  
  Perhaps its fairer to say that the US declared war against itself.
I love this... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-01 01:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

" Dotcom says he's innocent and can't be held responsible for those who chose to use the site to illegally download songs or movies.""
Except, you know, the proof that you paid people for uploading them.
1. Re:I love this... by fredprado · 2013-03-01 02:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Proof the DOJ apparently doesn't want to "disclose", most likely because they do not have it.
2. Re:I love this... by Mitreya · 2013-03-01 03:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Except, you know, the proof that you paid people for uploading them.
  The proof is so strong in this one that it doesn't even need to be shown? Is the U.S. argument that proof is so "obvious" that no one needs to see it
  
  The appeals court ruled that extensive disclosure would bog down the process and that a summary of the U.S. case would suffice.
  I am not familiar with New Zeland laws, but in U.S., that's not a valid argument. "Bogging down the process" means nothing compared to showing evidence to the accused. Right to confront your accuser and all that.
3. Re:I love this... by Tom · 2013-03-01 09:48 · Score: 2
  
  The proof is so strong in this one that it doesn't even need to be shown? Is the U.S. argument that proof is so "obvious" that no one needs to see it
  Correct.
  Because it is an extradition hearing. They do not have to show the evidence because they do not have to establish that he is guilty.
  Basically, it's like a discussion about setting the date for the trial. You don't need to have all the evidence presented at that discussion. You just need to establish if there's going to be a trial at all. And the defense claiming that they can't agree on a date without having seen and read all the evidence beforehand is just ridiculous and exactly what the court ruled: An attempt to obstruct the process.
  Because obstructing the process is in the interest of the defense. It delays everything, allows Kimble to continue living in his comfortable mansion, and the longer everything lasts the higher the chance that something in the procecution goes wrong.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Misleading Title by Nailer235 · 2013-03-01 01:55 · Score: 5, Informative

The title - while literally true - implies that a court has decided that Kim Dotcom can now be extradited. In fact, the issue decided by the court was much more limited: it held that Kim only has limited access to evidence during the future extradition hearing. While this does make it more likely that he will be extradited, the issue has NOT been decided yet.
1. Re:Misleading Title by Mitreya · 2013-03-01 03:05 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  In fact, the issue decided by the court was much more limited: it held that Kim only has limited access to evidence during the future extradition hearing. While this does make it more likely that he will be extradited, the issue has NOT been decided yet.
  It's pretty frigging close, really. Access to accuser's evidence seems pretty important. "Tell me, Mr. DotCom... What good is a court... if you are unable to defend yourself?"
  Maybe next ruling will be that neither DotCom or his lawyers are allowed to attend the proceedings! Surely, his lawyers (defending him) are "bogging down the proceedings" too. Things would go faster if it was just the U.S. alone presenting their side to the judge.
2. Re:Misleading Title by rsborg · 2013-03-01 06:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Extradition does not decide guilt. It decides whether you are the person being sought to face charges in the other jurisdiction and whether the charges are extraditable to the other jurisdiction. Evidence of guilt is mostly irrelevant to those questions.
  Extradition and Secret Prisons (aka black sites) = Who cares if you're guilty? We'll throw you in our clink and spend a few years mulling over what we're going to charge you with (see Bradley Manning). All of this is highly unconstitutional, but hey, the world has changed since 9/11, and that's all you need to know.
  Dotcom's best hope now is to flee to another country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US.
  
  --
  Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
3. Re:Misleading Title by boorack · 2013-03-01 07:25 · Score: 2
  
  Extradition into US "Justice" system means indenfinite detention, likely abuses and possible tortures for anyone US government (or US corporations) do not like.
In other news by Sparticus789 · 2013-03-01 01:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

U.S. Prosecutors have arrested the executive boards of ATT, Verizon, Comcast, and many other ISPs for their customers using internet connections to illegally download songs and movies.
BAZINGA!

--
sudo make me a sandwich
1. Re:In other news by Dunbal · 2013-03-01 01:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Next on the list: Cisco and Cat5 cable manufacturers.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:a summary of the U.S. case would suffice... by pla · 2013-03-01 02:03 · Score: 3, Funny

wtf???

US: "He's guilty. And has bad hair."
NZ: "Okay then, you can have him."
Monster Cable Exec Too by Dareth · 2013-03-01 02:04 · Score: 4, Funny

Don't forget to arrest the Monster Cable Exec too! Their cables allow people who bought movies and songs to enjoy them at a higher quality than their license permitted!

--

I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
1. Re:Monster Cable Exec Too by SydShamino · 2013-03-01 02:54 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  What?! No! Monster Cables are made from gold and faerie sweat. That's how they can improve the fidelity of digital signals transmitted over short distances.
  
  --
  It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Example by Korruptionen · 2013-03-01 02:06 · Score: 2

Seems like the US government is going to attempt to make more and more examples out of people. Right or wrong.. you had better not oppose the establishment. Shame.
1. Re:Example by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-01 02:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And it's funny how it's starting to look more so every day that the US gov is but a front for RIAA and MPAA. And for Microsoft and Monsanto...
  And then the yanks wonder why we don't like them.
2. Re:Example by flayzernax · 2013-03-01 02:53 · Score: 2
  
  The biggest irony is people think this is something new. The other sad fact is how many American's don't know, don't care to know. The last sad fact is that some think its right. And are glad to see individuals punished to suit an institutions goals. The philosophical education of American's in general is extremely lacking.
And the Steamroller begins by SoTerrified · 2013-03-01 02:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

"May I please view the evidence against me so I might put up a proper defense?"
"The appeals court ruled that disclosure would 'bog down the process' and that a summary of the U.S. case would suffice"

If that line doesn't send chills up the spine of every person who believes in due process... Good luck getting a fair trial in the USA where the judge, prosecutor and all aspects of the legal system are under the control of the corporations. I suspect they won't be happy until Kim Dotcom winds up like Aaron Swartz.
1. Re:And the Steamroller begins by idontgno · 2013-03-01 02:49 · Score: 2
  
  Good point. "Due process" is no process at all if the powers and the courts decide you're not due any process at all. For historical instance...
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
2. Re:And the Steamroller begins by LordLimecat · 2013-03-01 02:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  From the article:
  
  In its ruling, the appeals court found that full disclosure of evidence was not necessary at the extradition hearing because the hearing is not the venue to determine guilt or innocence. The court pointed out that the legal obligation on the U.S. is simply to prove it has a valid case to answer.
  IANAL, so I dont know if this is normal or not; its possible that it is. It would be nice if any international law folks can answer that question (rather than all the wild hysteria and speculation we're seeing).
  You have to remember that some courts really are not concerned with guilt or innocence-- if you are appealing a ruling due to a procedural problems, I believe that claiming "but im innocent" will not help as the appeals court doesnt care.
3. Re:And the Steamroller begins by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-01 02:52 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This is slightly different. This is an extradition case, not the trial itself. It seems kind of redundant for the US to make it's case at the extradition hearing, and then also when they get him back to the United States for trial.
  The US has a warrant for his arrest and has provided enough of evidence to show that the warrant was issued in good faith. That should be all they need for an extradition hearing.
  Everyone acts like dotcom will be summarily executed once he steps foot on American soil. That's not true at all, he will be given a trial and that will be his time to argue his innocence.
4. Re:And the Steamroller begins by Mitreya · 2013-03-01 03:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If that line doesn't send chills up the spine of every person who believes in due process...
  
  By that excellent logic, they should be able to bar DotCom from having any lawyers. Surely, the defense lawyers are "bogging down the process" too? Also, an impartial judge "bogs down the process" by listening to the case.
  In our future, courts will become more efficient if this argument is accepted (can they appeal?). Optimal and speedy process is the one where accused is declared guilty right after the charges are read.
5. Re:And the Steamroller begins by Hatta · 2013-03-01 04:04 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This is an extradition case, not the trial itself. It seems kind of redundant for the US to make it's case at the extradition hearing, and then also when they get him back to the United States for trial.
  The US should not have to prove his guilt before extradition. But it should have to prove that it has a case. And Dotcom deserves a chance to refute that.
  US has a warrant for his arrest and has provided enough of evidence to show that the warrant was issued in good faith.
  What evidence is that that any of the US's actions in this case have been done in good faith?
  Everyone acts like dotcom will be summarily executed once he steps foot on American soil. That's not true at all, he will be given a trial and that will be his time to argue his innocence.
  He will be given a trial based on American laws, when he was a German citizen doing business in New Zealand. The idea that US law applies to him at all is simply unconscionable.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
6. Re:And the Steamroller begins by Tom · 2013-03-01 09:38 · Score: 2
  
  Who modded you up?
  This is not a trial about the case and thus the evidence he requests is not important. This is an extradition trial, in which the US government would not even present said evidence, because they do not have to prove he is guilty. What they have to convince the court of is something entirely different - namely that he should be extradited to the US. In order to do that, they have to prove that they have a case at all, not that they are going to win it.
  Bogging down the process is a usual strategy of the defense. Kim is not currently in a jail cell, remember? He is under "house arrest" - which is a pretty comfortable thing to be if your house happens to be a multi-million dollar mansion with its own tennis court and a dozen servants and other employees. It is obviously in his interest to delay the process as long as possible for two simple reasons:
  One, if he delays it long enough, statutes of limitation will become a good way to escape justice. That's not theoretical, that happens quite a lot.
  Two, he doesn't have a mansion and a dozen luxury cars in the US. His stay would be quite a bit less comfortable.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
By virtue of logic... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-01 02:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

If he's found guilty of "facilitating massive copyright fraud" because of the product he offered, then it sets a precedent which will spell doom for the following good fellows:
- American Airlines, United Flight and United Airlines should be found guilty of "facilitating terrorist attacks" since their planes were used.
- Alcoholic product makers should be found guilty of "facilitating disorderly conduct, rape and drunk driving"
- Car makers should be found guilty of "facilitating reckless endangerment and road rage"
- Gun makers should be found guilty of "facilitating homicides and mass murders"
- All ISPs should be found guilty of "facilitating exchange of child pornography material" through their network
- I wouldn't want to be one of the civil engineers who "facilitated suicide" by designing those bridges they jump off of
Then again: USA! USA! USA! Fuck logic. Money talks.
Looks like money changed hands by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-01 02:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

How could they possibly extradite Kim Dotcom considering all the illegal tactics the US did during it's "investigation" (defying New Zealand court orders, illegally smuggling evidence out of the country, etc.). The New Zealand courts should have realized from that behavior that he is not going to get a fair trial.
This looks like yet another DOJ politically motivated prosecution.
Re:China, please do us Americans a favor by Luckyo · 2013-03-01 03:00 · Score: 2

Empire to empire relations are different from empire to vassal state.