Slashdot Mirror
Kim Dotcom Sues New Zealand For $6.8 Billion In Damages Over Erroneous Arrest (torrentfreak.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: Kim Dotcom, the founder of file-sharing site Megaupload, is suing the New Zealand government for billions of dollars in damages over his arrest in 2012. The internet entrepreneur is fighting extradition to the U.S. to stand trial for copyright infringement and fraud. Mr Dotcom says an invalid arrest warrant negated all charges against him. He is seeking damages for destruction to his business and loss of reputation. Accountants calculate that the Megaupload group of companies would be worth $10 billion today, had it not been shut down during the raid. As he was a 68% shareholder in the business, Mr Dotcom has asked for damages going up to $6.8 billion. He is also considering taking similar action against the Hong Kong government. As stated in documents filed with the High Court, Mr Dotcom is also seeking damages for: all lost business opportunities since 2012, his legal costs, loss of investments he made to the mansion he was renting, his lost opportunity to purchase the mansion, and loss of reputation.
People sue, and win against, the federal government in the US on a regular basis. Sovereign immunity isn't absolute.
AFAIK NZ does not have sovereign immunity , lots of people have successfully sued the government.
NZ only has ONE police force, funded from central government funds. There are no elected law enforcement agents , and the head of any government department is also not forced to resign with any change of government. To become a judge is actually quite difficult in NZ, and is generally outside the sphere of political interference.
NZ used to have access to the UK privy council for legal appeals, many cases were taken there against the government and rulings were made against the government.
For wrongful imprisonment it depends on if you are found innocent vs not guilty, and there is a formula used to work out the payment, though the government has to approve final settlement, however this too can be appealed through the courts.
If he can prove the losses, there is a good chance he could receive the compensation he asks for, however I suspect he is likely to get at most 10% of what he is asking for, though local Maori has successfully received compensation for over $1 Billion
toss flashbangs into the children's room.
Its the difference an english style justice system makes. One of the fatal mistakes the US has made with its justitce system is the way it appoints judges has become utterly politicized, to the point where , somewhat bafflingly, in some states they actually vote for them, which has led to mindboggling corruption in so many cases.. There should be no such thing as a "conservative" or "liberal" judge, its an absurdity.
More to the point, where theres electoral politics , even in the case of indirect electoral politics (Ie appointment of judges by elected officials) theres always the chance of corruption where interests can say "Give us this judge who we know always votes against consumers in copyright cases, and we'll throw another million into the electoral fund"
The way the rest of the world does it, the court apoints new judges as the need emerges, with the government simply approving the choices. If the govt intervenes it better have a damn good reason, or theres trouble.
Here in australia we had one case recently where the previous conservative government in Queensland (Its kind of like our Arizona, meth lab of democracy), put some crazy asshole with almost no qualification into the supreme court, throwing a huge protest up from the supreme court itself because it was unconscionable interference with the courts by a government that repeatedly kept violating the constitution and federal laws and thus had come into pretty serious conflict with the court. Fortunately the dodgy appointment soon realised he was way out of his depth and quit.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.