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."
The USA is a rogue state.
The fact that its citizens allow this crap is even more telling.
I agree 100%. I don't care one way or the other about Kim Dotcom, but we have to do something about these insane civil forfeiture laws. Way too many people are having their possessions stolen by law enforcement, with little recourse to get them back.
At one time, florida law allowed police to confiscate any cash on you (if you carried more than $300) during a traffic citation on the assumption it was drug money. It was on the person to prove the money was not acquired through illegal drug activities.
Ohio has a similar law, however there was no opportunity to prove your innocence nor was your guilt even always questioned.
They take it on the assumption it is drug money and they charge the money with the crime.
Since you wouldn't be the defendant, the court refuses to hear anything you may have to say.
I had a friend that happened to, whom I'm at least pretty certain isn't/wasn't a drug dealer ever.
He just cashed his paycheck that evening after work and had both his paycheck stub and the cash-to-go place receipt for the identical amount, both dated that day.
The court wouldn't even allow him to state his defense or show those as any kind of evidence. And yes the police department kept the money.
No you're castigated as alt-right because you're a bunch of moronic bigots. Being against civil forfeiture is squarely center or left, because it's the right and their stupid war on drugs that is the justification for it.