Slashdot Mirror
US Gov't Seeks To Keep Megaupload Assets Because Kim Dotcom Is a Fugitive
mrspoonsi writes with this excerpt from Billboard: 'On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Justice told a Virginia federal judge that Kim Dotcom and cohorts have no business challenging the seizure of an estimated $67 million in assets because the Megaupload founder is evading prosecution. The government brought criminal charges against Dotcom in early 2012, but he's been holed up in New Zealand awaiting word on whether he'll be extradited. The government got antsy and this past July, brought a civil complaint for forfeiture in rem, a maneuver to firmly establish a hold over money from bank accounts around the world, luxury cars, big televisions, watches, artwork and other property allegedly gained by Megaupload in the course of crimes. Dotcom is fighting the seizures by questioning the government's basis for asserting a crime, saying "there is no such crime as secondary criminal copyright infringement," as well as challenging how the seized assets are tied to the charges against Dotcom. But according to the U.S. government, Dotcom doesn't get the pleasure of even making the arguments. In a motion to strike, the government cites the doctrine of fugitive disentitlement, which bars a person from using the resources of the court if that person is aware of prosecution and is evading it.
So, because he is exercising his rights as a foreign citizen living in another country and going through the legally established international process for determining extradition, he is a 'fugitive' and thus his assets are fair game?
This strikes me as a blatant misuse fugitive disentitlement which is more intended for situations where someone is on the run and unlocatable or in a hostile country with no extradition treaty. NZ has a treaty and Dotcom (wow I hate that name) is going through the appeals system. That is not really 'evading' since evasion implies extrajudicial methods.... it strikes me more as the JoD wanting to circumvent international law when things do not immediately go their way.
It'll come in handy giving the wealthy a tax cut to keep them happy and stop them scaring the public shitless with their scare stories about how they'll emigrate to a NICE place if you don't do even more to keep them happy.
And that deficit keeps growing.
So of COURSE you're going to keep your stolen assets.
And complaining about other countries nicking the money of good ole USA internationals as if it's for the reduction of their wasteful socialist commie states' excesses.
FTFA, Dotcom's lawyer:
The issue is the government basically is looking to use the fugitive disentitlement doctrine as procedural mechanism to avoid arguing merits of criminal action.
The case seems to have no merit, they're probably reluctant to bring it to a trial. I think they were probably hoping for a plea in the first place, to avoid a trial and the associated oversight, and didn't think it would go this way or drag out this long.
I'm guessing the US will immediately hand over other fugitives then, since it believes so strongly in respecting the law. Fugitives like Paul Watson, John McCaffee and Amanda Knox to name but a few.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The US government is a terrorist government and it can seize your money whereever and whenever it wants.
Brought to you by the United States government.
Thugs. Nothing more, nothing less.
Google "asset forfeiture" and weep.
Asset forfeiture is a standard trick in the bag of US justice. They take your assets, then you then have to prove your innocence to get them back. The fact that this goes against the US Constitution, as well as international law? Irrelevant, I mean, what are you gonna do, call the police? When the police are the thieves, that's not very useful...
The US is a police state pretending to be a democracy. Lot's of people haven't been stepped on yet, so they can continue ignoring this unpleasant reality.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
...or as it is also called, presumption of guilt.
With all the illegal activities the DOJ has been actively caught doing in this case. I would suggest to Dotcom's lawyers that they take this to the UN World Court and have the worldwide assets of the DOJ seized as profits of criminal activity.
Why does the US think, or act, as if international boundaries don't exist when it comes to monies and prosecution? I realize the whole fiasco the US Gov has brought against Dotcom is a farce, but at this point, it's really spotlighting just how screwed up the justice policies and priorities are for the US.
And why exactly does the US think Dotcom doesn't have the right to defend himself? Seems this manuever by the US Gov. wants to solidify his guilt before there's even been a trial.
At this point, it's utterly disgusting just what the US Gov is resorting to, to bring a case against someone halfway across the globe.
Then U.S. Government assets are fair game. Those goons do not stand behind the law, so they don't have the weight of law.
Turn about is fair play.
Secondary copyright infringement may not exist, but there is another law that prohibits a foreign defendant with a competent legal team from making the US government look like an incompetent wing of the entertainment industry in a kangaroo court during a show trial to enforce imaginary laws for propaganda. Last i heard the penalty was 67 million dollars.
Good people go to bed earlier.
The US has more or less been co-opted to be the enforcers of the copyright cartels, and are willing to bend their (and anybody else's laws) to have a "prosecute at any cost and to hell with the law" mentality.
Since they've been unable to successfully argue in court that he should be extradited, they're going for the strong arm tactic of property theft.
They're basically putting the cart before the horse, and saying "he's guilty because we say so, and since he won't come here and confess, we'll just take all his stuff".
From the sounds of it, they haven't accused him of a crime which actually exists, since there is no statute.
So everything else is just bullshit, lies, and posturing.
I can't wait until some foreign court rules that all of some American official's stuff should be siezed because he's been tried in absentia for war crimes.
Because Americans would scream and go "yarg, we're not under your jurisdiction" despite frequently doing the same thing.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I wonder how many pairs of jackboots they can buy for $67 million ?
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
I hate the name dotcom and bullying US propanganda and lawyers and extradition and copyright.
I am so confused. I don't particularly hate New Zealand...perhaps there is hope after all.
That's what everyone is saying here. Yeah, so they are... Big deal... You can thank the voters, for being, in a recently made famous word, "Stupid", stupid for willingly believing the lies. Tell me, what am I supposed to feel towards those people who did this?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Nothing that was hosted there is relevant now. There's also 50 other sites to take it's place.
Buck Feta. You know what to do.
Our Justice Dept is such an embarrassment.
Silly foreigner, only rich American citizens are human beings with rights.
... You have 90 days to secure an extradition of Mssr. Dotcom; otherwise, those assets go back to Him. At least, in My Mind they do.
Might as well stop fooling ourselves that we're a nation of laws. The actions of the US government are indistinguishable from those of an unlimited monarchy; they take what they want. Soon the burden of writing, re-writing, and re-interpreting little laws to justify it will be onerous, and they'll stop.
Then we won't have to (and indeed won't be allowed to) waste time talking about it.
'There shall be no taking without compensation.' The US government is a criminal organization.
If Dotcom(yes, also hate that name) did not in fact do anything illegal, why doesn't he just take his day in court, and make the DOJ look foolish for their shenanigans? He clearly has(sorry, had) the funds to fight the DOJ and the DOJ clearly doesn't have a case.
There is something we are missing here I think.
He lied on his application for residency. Hopefully he gets deported. Then its Germany's problem.
Only people who are fugitives have extradition preceding lodged against them. Therefore since Dotcom has extradition preceding against him he is is a fugitive. All the extradition preceding do is determine if the country that the fugitive is hiding in agrees that the charges are valid. It does not change the fact that he is a fugitive. If he gets spotted in the US before the statute of limitations runs out he will be arrested.
It is interesting that Dotcom wants to use the US legal system to get his assets back but not stand up to the charges against him. You can't just pick which parts of the legal system to use. It is an all or nothing thing.
Lawyers often study "conflict of laws", where law A says "X is a crime" and B says "do X". Good legal draftsmen will therefor say something like "not withstanding A, do X", but not everyone is a good draftsman(/woman/shark). It would be amusing and very embarassing to charge a district attorney with possession of stolen property (;-))
davecb@spamcop.net
The court can rule either way, but generally leans away from the fugitive.
"Though disentitlement of fugitive claimants is discretionary, rather than mandatory, courts have found that the exercise of its discretion under 2466 is necessary to protect the integrity of the judicial system,"
He is claiming that the govt is charging him with something that is not a crime
"there is no such crime as secondary criminal copyright infringement,"
If this is the case, then perhaps the best way to preserve the integrity of the judicial system is to rule for the crook.
At least, the court should verify that the charge making him a fugitive is a valid charge.
The U.S. government is EXTREMELY abusive, and, in many ways, no longer a democratic government.
I assume it will be dispersed to the copyright holders he is accused of infringing on?
It's a tricky case. Basically, the doctrine says that a fugitive can't say "I'm not subject to this court" (by fleeing justice) and simultaneously use the court to his advantage, in different aspects of the same matter.
I am not a lawyer (IANL), but as far as I can see, this case is very similar to Degen v. United States (1996). In that case, the Supreme Court explicitly said that the government was not justified in using the doctrine of fugitive disentitlement to dismiss a challenge of forfeiture.
Reference and discussion: http://scholarlycommons.law.no...
The summary of that case (from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990... ):
"Principles of deference to the other branches of government require a court to invoke its inherent power only as a reasonable response to the problems and needs that provoke it. No sufficient reason justifies disentitlement here. Since the court's jurisdiction over the property is secure despite Degen's absence, there is no risk of delay or frustration in determining the merits of the government's forfeiture claims or in enforcing the resulting judgment. Also, the court has alternatives, other than disentitlement, to keep Degen from using liberal civil discovery rules to gain an improper advantage in the criminal prosecution, where discovery is more limited. Finally, disentitlement is an excessive response to the court's interests in redressing the indignity visited upon it by Degen's absence from the criminal proceeding, and in deterring flight from criminal prosecution in general; it is a response that erodes rather than enhances the dignity of the court."
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Our government blatantly abusing and/or misconstruing legislative intent for vendettas or other malicious purposes? No way!!!
The "whoosh" remark was onomatopoeia.
It was the sound of the previous author's sarcasm, to which you had replied, sailing above your understanding.
Will allow him to seize a U.S. Destroyer.
Government needs to be able to ignore its own laws and selectively apply them as long as it benefits the 0.1% elites. That's a core function in government
FTFY
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
The saddest thing for me is that the New Zealand's law enforcement is complicit in this whole illegal seizure of asserts. Kim Dotcom should not be required to take legal action to have his assets returned, the New Zealand law enforcement agencies that allowed this fiasco to take place should be leading the action to have justice restored.
Justice Department what a joke.
This case is not about a copyright issue - the agencies that were involved in the confiscation of Dotkoms equipment do not get involved with copyright infringement, the reason the equipment was taken is because there was information stored on it, which they did not want to come to light, if they had issued a takedown order - which Dotcom always complied with, they thought it might have sparked his curousity, so instead they just took all the equipment and copies of it. They will never return it even if legally obliged to do so.
I hope you are able to escape Communist China some day.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell