Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Won't Hear Kim Dotcom's Civil Forfeiture Case (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Kim Dotcom's civil forfeiture case will not be heard before the Supreme Court this term, America's highest court ruled on Monday. The civil forfeiture case was brought 18 months after 2012 American criminal charges related to alleged copyright infringement against Dotcom and his now-shuttered company, Megaupload. In the forfeiture case, prosecutors specifically outlined why the New Zealand seizure of Dotcom's assets on behalf of the American government was valid. Seized items include millions of dollars in various seized bank accounts in Hong Kong and New Zealand, the Dotcom mansion, several luxury cars, four jet skis, two 108-inch TVs, three 82-inch TVs, a $10,000 watch, and a photograph by Olaf Mueller worth over $100,000.
"We are disappointed in the denial of the cert petition -- it is a bad day for due process and international treaties," Ira Rothken, Dotcom's chief global counsel, told Ars. "Kim Dotcom has never been to the United States, is presumed innocent, and is lawfully opposing extradition under the United States-New Zealand Treaty -- yet the United States by merely labeling him as a fugitive gets a judgement to take all of his assets with no due process," Rothken said. "The New Zealand and Hong Kong courts, who have authority over the assets, will now need to weigh in on this issue and we are cautiously optimistic that they will take a dim view of the Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine and oppose US efforts to seize such assets."
"We are disappointed in the denial of the cert petition -- it is a bad day for due process and international treaties," Ira Rothken, Dotcom's chief global counsel, told Ars. "Kim Dotcom has never been to the United States, is presumed innocent, and is lawfully opposing extradition under the United States-New Zealand Treaty -- yet the United States by merely labeling him as a fugitive gets a judgement to take all of his assets with no due process," Rothken said. "The New Zealand and Hong Kong courts, who have authority over the assets, will now need to weigh in on this issue and we are cautiously optimistic that they will take a dim view of the Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine and oppose US efforts to seize such assets."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/forfeiture-without-due-process/2011/12/22/gIQAckn3WP_story.html?utm_term=.2bb81d9378c5
https://www.wsj.com/articles/its-still-seizure-without-proper-due-process-1453321983
The U.S. only applies its legal doctrine (most of the time) to its own country. For the rest of the world, they're just fucking bullies, period. They routinely violate all their international treaties. The U.S.'s signature isn't worth the paper it's written on.
The best thing the world could do right now is to let Trump build his fucking wall, build another one up north, and let americans rot in their own filth for eternity. All countries should sever all diplomatic and commercial relations with them. Isn't that what they want, after all ?
After a period of adjusment, the world could do fine without the U.S. Could the U.S. survive without the rest of the world ? Let's find out.
I've never once heard it mentioned on a major campaign. Nobody likes it, but when it comes time to vote the 'tough on crime' voters always seem to outnumber the civil rights voters.
Until folks start showing up at the polls and voting the Tough on Crime crowd out this is all just pissing in the wind...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
..Civil Forfeiture is an immoral and most likely Unconstitutional act.
You can't have governments just taking your shit because they THINK you have been a bad dude. If they have proof, then prosecute and confiscate.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
The court did not rule on the case, they explicitly chose not to even hear the case. With civil forfeiture is involved, the outcome is the same as saying "You are guilty and have no right to defend yourself. We will be keeping your stuff."
You are mixing levels. He still was unable to go to court to prevent damages. His day in court was about whether he would be able to go to court at all. The government gave him a process without the rights guaranteed him. That is a violation of due process.
Wrong.
The court said that he forfeited his due process rights by fleeing prosecution, so appearing before a US court (even voluntarily and without being arrested) won't give him back.
The district court entered a default judgement and approved the forfeiture, because the justice dept argued successfully that as a fugitive who was willfully evading US jurisdiciton he voluntarily abandoned any right to contest the forfeiture. Even though I agree with dotcom that he was not a fugitive in the first place, since he was legally fighting extradition instead of fleeing even from NZ authorities.
The appellate court basically took the side of the prosecution, possibly figuring that SCOTUS could fix it if they screwed up.
SCOTUS said "we got bigger fish to fry, piss off" and denied cert. As it is they're picky about cases even if they know the appelate court screwed up. For example, the "rule of 4" they use to filter out cases includes, among other things, circuit splits.
There is no further due process for kim with regard to the forfeitures. The only due process remaining is his criminal case for copyright infringement. The civil stuff is over and the US gets to keep everything.
As it is I think that the US legal system may well have been deliberately designed to be flaky enough to keep the proverbial buck passing until someone fumbles.
It doesn't matter if he's a horrible manipulative guy. The fact that any government can assume that somebody is guilty and take ownership of their assets so they can't afford to defend themselves properly is a horrific concept.