Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Supreme Court Won't Hear Kim Dotcom's Civil Forfeiture Case (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the back-to-the-drawing-board dept.

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."

6 of 165 comments (clear)

  1. unconstitutional by XXongo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Civil forfeiture without any trial violates the bill of rights. Not just Kim Dotcom, either, the government should't be able to take stuff from anybody without due process, merely by asserting that they think maybe that person had committed a crime.

    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

    1. Re:unconstitutional by platinummyr · · Score: 5, Informative

      People on both the left and the right oppose civil forfeiture...

    2. Re:unconstitutional by letthelightin · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Constitution is about restricting government, not explicitly about protecting anyone, thus this seizure is definitely illegal, as the government has violated it's founding charter.

      Heck, it definitely DOESN'T protect citizens, but instead mentions the People, and one does not need to be a citizen to be a member of the People.

      Citizenship is a contract between a member of the People and the government.

      Vanhorne v. Dorrance, 2 US 304 - Supreme Court 1795

      The Constitution is the work or will of the People themselves, in their original, sovereign, and unlimited
      capacity. Law is the work or will of the Legislature in their derivative and subordinate capacity. The one is
      the work of the Creator, and the other of the Creature. The Constitution fixes limits to the exercise of legislative
      authority, and prescribes the orbit within which it must move. In short, gentlemen, the Constitution is the sun of the
      political system, around which all Legislative, Executive and Judicial bodies must revolve. Whatever may be the
      case in other countries, yet in this there can be no doubt, that every act of the Legislature, repugnant to the
      Constitution, is absolutely void.

    3. Re:unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Bill of Rights and Due Process is only valid to naturally born or legalized US citizens.

      Huh? Where does it say that?

      First off, let's be clear that the Bill of Rights is a limitation on US Governmental power. It says that what the US government can and cannot do. It doesn't "give" rights to citizens, it prohibits the US Government from violating (natural) rights of others.

      Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it mention "citizens", though in places it does mention "the people". Note that the Constitution *does* mention "citizens", so by implication "the people" and "citizens" are not synonymous. (Though admittedly "the people" could be interpreted as a back-reference to the opening line of "We the people of the United States ..." -- though I'm personally unaware of any Supreme Court ruling that would establish this narrow interpretation.)

      Regarding Due Process, there's an even stronger case there. With Due Process you're talking specifically about the Fifth Amendment, which doesn't even contain the phrase "the people". It explicitly says "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (emphasis added)

      Unless you're arguing that there's some court decision ruling that a non-citizen isn't "a person" (and have the references to back it up), you've got a rather strong uphill battle to argue that the Fifth Amendment does not also enjoin the US Government from violating their rights.

  2. I don't care What the alleged Crime is... by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ..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.
    1. Re:I don't care What the alleged Crime is... by reboot246 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.