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.
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.
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
since Dotcom has extradition preceding against him he is is a fugitive
A fugitive is someone on the run from justice, not someone willingly submitting to standard extradition protocol under an extant treaty.
Man, arguments would be so much easier if I were willing to just make up definitions to suit my purposes, like you. Oh well.
.: Semper Absurda