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.
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.
Those are all little fish. Let's go for some important criminals.
Henry Kissinger: The Trial of Henry Kissinger
George W. Bush: The Bush Administration’s Liability for 269 War Crimes
Richard Cheney: CheneyWatch
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.