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.
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.
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.
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.
>Seems this manuever by the US Gov. wants to solidify his guilt before there's even been a trial.
Seems this is standard practice in the US: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09...
However the world spotlight is on this case.
I wonder how many pairs of jackboots they can buy for $67 million ?
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
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!”
Silly foreigner, only rich American citizens are human beings with rights.
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.
IIRC the UN World Court can only try cases in which both parties agree to take part.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Do you have some mechanism for seizing US government assets? Particularly if you aren't another government?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
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.
And why exactly does the US think Dotcom doesn't have the right to defend himself?
He does have that right which he can exercise by coming to the US and presenting himself for trial. He does not have the right to select which parts of the legal system to defend himself against.
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
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
Do you have some mechanism for seizing US government assets? Particularly if you aren't another government?
Yes.
It's called a 'scoped high-powered rifle in the hands of tens of thousands of citizens.
Apply to political leaders until resistance to citizens seizing (reclaiming their stolen) assets stops.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
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.
He is following extradition procedure under the extradition treaty established between the US and New Zealand. The DoJ is claiming that following a treaty that the US government itself established is criminal. They might as well bring up the NZ courts for aiding a fugitive, since the NZ courts are processing the extradition request.
.: Semper Absurda
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 !
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
One is not required by law to turn oneself over once accused. And entire trials have been done in absentia before. He has lawyers in the court representing him, so why not just proceed?
Learn to love Alaska
According to this a defendant must be present at the beginning of a trial except under certain circumstances. Dotcom's charges do not fall under these exceptions.
Even if NZ does not grant extradition he is still a fugitive from the US justice system.
The DoJ is claiming that following a treaty that the US government itself established is criminal.
No, the seizing of assets is not based on being a criminal but a fugitive.
They might as well bring up the NZ courts for aiding a fugitive, since the NZ courts are processing the extradition request.
Since US law does not cover foreign countries and international law allows countries to refuse extradition your supposition is incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
It's less common than I thought, but still happens.
Learn to love Alaska
The important part being that in all US cases the defendant appeared at an arraignment.