Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Kim Dotcom Faces Jail At Bail Hearing

Posted by timothy on from the such-cynicism dept.

An anonymous reader writes A bail hearing will resume on Monday at which New Zealand authorities will claim one-time internet tycoon Kim Dotcom is a flight risk and should be sent to jail to await his extradition hearing. The Crown quizzed Dotcom on his finances, contacts and even his online gaming habits this week. Authorities argued he had breached bail conditions by trying to sell a Rolls Royce and having contact with former Megaupload colleagues. Dotcom is wanted in the US on criminal copyright violation and racketeering charges.

13 of 166 comments (clear)

  1. authorities? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the same authorities who are on hook for damages if doesn't get sent to USA? and probably on misconduct shit even if he does get sent.

    where would he take a flight to anyways? bahamas?

    and wtf - why should he be isolated from former megaupload workers, seems like a proper defense wouldn't be possible without coordinating with them somewhat.

  2. Not a fan but come on by Mistakill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a kiwi, I'm not a fan but this is ridiculous... hes been charged with no New Zealand crime... the search warrant was ruled by a New Zealand judge to be illegal and excessive. He's not exactly an average looking person... he would stand out

  3. Bail terms - no more money making by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He can't sell a car? He can't talk to people to help him get money? His bail terms must be to sit and do nothing until they get him in jail permanently. He's screwed, and it shows the law means nothing if they have a grudge against you.

    1. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The car was part of the assets under seizure,

      Seizure again without due process on the theory that he is a "fugitive from justice in the United States". Being a fugitive is somewhat of a stretch considering that he is a German citizen and has never been in the United States to start with. So they are are seizing and freezing all his assets because he is a "fugitive" from the U.S., and the U.S. justice system is wired in a way that you only get to see justice (or the closest approximation to it you will see there) if you can fork over lots of cash for your defense.

      Don't take me wrong: I consider Kim DotCom a douchebag, but compared to the douchebagginess of the U.S. prosecution and its New Zealand lapdogs as shown here he is a cute little puppy.

    2. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree, it's amazingly hard to pick sides in this battle. Is there any way that we could make both of them lose?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A former Brazilian Politician (of the 50s IIRC), once said:

      "For friends, everything; for enemies, the Law."

      The Law is a good instrument to promote all kinds of injustice. Can't really say anything else, because the present case proves there's no Freedom of Expression. Not in the US and neither overseas. I hope I can still say that...

    4. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No matter how much of a douche he is, being a douche isn't a criminal offence or worthy of being locked up and deprived of your assets because America says so.

      Defending freedom often means defending scoundrels, but it's a price worth paying.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Bail terms - no more money making by Filter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have almost certainly broken sharia law of many nations, how would you feel about defending your self there. Should you be extradited? Should your assets be frozen so that you have no chance of financing a reasonable defence?

      --

      "better ways of doing things eventually just replace the inferior things" - Linus Torvalds 09-08-07

  4. Welcome to the arbitrary power of the court. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You (insert your name here) are hereby accused of (unstated) crime. It doesn't matter what, but it was serious enough to threaten (insert multinational corporation here) profits.

    Your plea is irrelevant. Your evidence is irrelevant. Your refutation of our evidence is irrelevant. Precedent is irrelevant.

    Go directly to jail. Forfeit all assets. And get your mind right.

    1. Re:Welcome to the arbitrary power of the court. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... this is someone that belongs in a jail cell ...

      How nice to have a verdict without a trial. 'Presumption of innocence' is a legal fiction created to counteract the thuggery of the police. Once someone says that fiction doesn't count, the accused cannot win. Because the police no longer have to prove they're correct.

      ... being clever to get around the law ...

      So the cops are allowed to be criminals too? Approving police thuggery never helps.

      ... who is actually guilty as hell ...

      Then the police can find evidence the old-fashioned way.

    2. Re:Welcome to the arbitrary power of the court. by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First they came for the scumbags ... but I'd already done a Godwin so I didn't care.
      Nobody should be above or below the law, even scumbags. He doesn't belong in a jail cell until they charge him with something that could put you or me in a jail cell.

  5. No Cash Left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I do not htink it is a coincidence that he is low on cash and now seems to be at risk of going to jail.

    No money=Guilty.

    Lots of money=Not Guilty, or at least it was till this point at question whether he was or not.

  6. Re:Moral of the story is... by penix1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have always said fining a corporation does no good since it simply becomes a "cost of doing business" usually with their customers footing the fine.

    Want to really punish a corporation? Revoke or suspend their corporate charter. Remove the protections they, and more importantly, their shareholder's enjoy. Let them feel the pain when a company does something illegal. They want to be thought of as a person, then let's treat them as a person and remove the entitlements they receive by being corporations.

    --
    This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.