US Wins Appeal In Battle To Extradite Kim Dotcom 175
Dr Max sends this excerpt from an AP report:
"U.S. prosecutors won a New Zealand court victory Friday in their battle to extradite Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom and three colleagues accused of facilitating massive copyright fraud through the now-defunct online file-sharing site. The appeals court overturned an earlier ruling that would have allowed Dotcom and the others broad access to evidence in the case against them at the time of their extradition hearing, which is scheduled for August. The appeals court ruled that extensive disclosure would bog down the process and that a summary of the U.S. case would suffice. Dotcom says he's innocent and can't be held responsible for those who chose to use the site to illegally download songs or movies."
I love this... (Score:5, Insightful)
" Dotcom says he's innocent and can't be held responsible for those who chose to use the site to illegally download songs or movies.""
Except, you know, the proof that you paid people for uploading them.
In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
U.S. Prosecutors have arrested the executive boards of ATT, Verizon, Comcast, and many other ISPs for their customers using internet connections to illegally download songs and movies.
BAZINGA!
Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In other news (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I love this... (Score:4, Insightful)
And the Steamroller begins (Score:5, Insightful)
"The appeals court ruled that disclosure would 'bog down the process' and that a summary of the U.S. case would suffice"
If that line doesn't send chills up the spine of every person who believes in due process... Good luck getting a fair trial in the USA where the judge, prosecutor and all aspects of the legal system are under the control of the corporations. I suspect they won't be happy until Kim Dotcom winds up like Aaron Swartz.
By virtue of logic... (Score:3, Insightful)
If he's found guilty of "facilitating massive copyright fraud" because of the product he offered, then it sets a precedent which will spell doom for the following good fellows:
- American Airlines, United Flight and United Airlines should be found guilty of "facilitating terrorist attacks" since their planes were used.
- Alcoholic product makers should be found guilty of "facilitating disorderly conduct, rape and drunk driving"
- Car makers should be found guilty of "facilitating reckless endangerment and road rage"
- Gun makers should be found guilty of "facilitating homicides and mass murders"
- All ISPs should be found guilty of "facilitating exchange of child pornography material" through their network
- I wouldn't want to be one of the civil engineers who "facilitated suicide" by designing those bridges they jump off of
Then again: USA! USA! USA! Fuck logic. Money talks.
Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (Score:5, Insightful)
The extradition is complete. Everything else is just a formality. The court just ruled that Dotcom isn't going to be able to use any real evidence to defend himself. Now New Zealand has to follow their treaty obligations and send him to a US kangaroo court where he will face 100,000 charges and a million year jail term (or 2 years in jail on a plea agreement). He's fucked. If I were him, I'd think about escaping to a country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US.
Looks like money changed hands (Score:4, Insightful)
How could they possibly extradite Kim Dotcom considering all the illegal tactics the US did during it's "investigation" (defying New Zealand court orders, illegally smuggling evidence out of the country, etc.). The New Zealand courts should have realized from that behavior that he is not going to get a fair trial.
This looks like yet another DOJ politically motivated prosecution.
Re:Example (Score:3, Insightful)
And it's funny how it's starting to look more so every day that the US gov is but a front for RIAA and MPAA. And for Microsoft and Monsanto...
And then the yanks wonder why we don't like them.
Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (Score:5, Insightful)
New Zealand has no other choice but to hand Dotcom over. If they don't . . . no more local economy boosting Hollywood films will be made in New Zealand.
I really don't give a rat's ass if Dotcom is convicted or not. However, I find the way that this is being done a bit disturbing. No full access to the evidence against him? This sounds rather like a Soviet denunciation legal procedure.
What do our "I am a Kiwi lawyer" readers have to say about the right of the accused to see the evidence against him in New Zealand? Maybe this is normal there, and nothing special they are doing to railroad Dotcom.
Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (Score:3, Insightful)
It's only fair game when China has the might and firepower of the US, which it does not.
So therefore the US tell others what to do and you will obey because otherwise we can own and destroy your ass. Case closed.
USA.
Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (Score:5, Insightful)
It's only fair game when China has the might and firepower of the US, which it does not.
So therefore the US tell others what to do and you will obey because otherwise we can own and destroy your ass. Case closed.
USA.
So when they do it will be fair?
Re:And the Steamroller begins (Score:4, Insightful)
From the article:
In its ruling, the appeals court found that full disclosure of evidence was not necessary at the extradition hearing because the hearing is not the venue to determine guilt or innocence. The court pointed out that the legal obligation on the U.S. is simply to prove it has a valid case to answer.
IANAL, so I dont know if this is normal or not; its possible that it is. It would be nice if any international law folks can answer that question (rather than all the wild hysteria and speculation we're seeing).
You have to remember that some courts really are not concerned with guilt or innocence-- if you are appealing a ruling due to a procedural problems, I believe that claiming "but im innocent" will not help as the appeals court doesnt care.
Re:And the Steamroller begins (Score:4, Insightful)
This is slightly different. This is an extradition case, not the trial itself. It seems kind of redundant for the US to make it's case at the extradition hearing, and then also when they get him back to the United States for trial.
The US has a warrant for his arrest and has provided enough of evidence to show that the warrant was issued in good faith. That should be all they need for an extradition hearing.
Everyone acts like dotcom will be summarily executed once he steps foot on American soil. That's not true at all, he will be given a trial and that will be his time to argue his innocence.
Re:I love this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Except, you know, the proof that you paid people for uploading them.
The proof is so strong in this one that it doesn't even need to be shown? Is the U.S. argument that proof is so "obvious" that no one needs to see it
The appeals court ruled that extensive disclosure would bog down the process and that a summary of the U.S. case would suffice.
I am not familiar with New Zeland laws, but in U.S., that's not a valid argument. "Bogging down the process" means nothing compared to showing evidence to the accused. Right to confront your accuser and all that.
Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (Score:5, Insightful)
If they don't . . . no more local economy boosting Hollywood films will be made in New Zealand.
I doubt that. The movie companies are always looking at the bottom line. New Zealand offers the right landscapes at the right price with first world infrastructure. If it was cheaper elsewhere they'd already be going elsewhere. I very much doubt they'd pay significantly more just to make this point.
Re:Misleading Title (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, the issue decided by the court was much more limited: it held that Kim only has limited access to evidence during the future extradition hearing. While this does make it more likely that he will be extradited, the issue has NOT been decided yet.
It's pretty frigging close, really. Access to accuser's evidence seems pretty important. "Tell me, Mr. DotCom... What good is a court... if you are unable to defend yourself?"
Maybe next ruling will be that neither DotCom or his lawyers are allowed to attend the proceedings! Surely, his lawyers (defending him) are "bogging down the proceedings" too. Things would go faster if it was just the U.S. alone presenting their side to the judge.
Re:And the Steamroller begins (Score:4, Insightful)
If that line doesn't send chills up the spine of every person who believes in due process...
By that excellent logic, they should be able to bar DotCom from having any lawyers. Surely, the defense lawyers are "bogging down the process" too? Also, an impartial judge "bogs down the process" by listening to the case.
In our future, courts will become more efficient if this argument is accepted (can they appeal?). Optimal and speedy process is the one where accused is declared guilty right after the charges are read.
Re:And the Steamroller begins (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an extradition case, not the trial itself. It seems kind of redundant for the US to make it's case at the extradition hearing, and then also when they get him back to the United States for trial.
The US should not have to prove his guilt before extradition. But it should have to prove that it has a case. And Dotcom deserves a chance to refute that.
US has a warrant for his arrest and has provided enough of evidence to show that the warrant was issued in good faith.
What evidence is that that any of the US's actions in this case have been done in good faith?
Everyone acts like dotcom will be summarily executed once he steps foot on American soil. That's not true at all, he will be given a trial and that will be his time to argue his innocence.
He will be given a trial based on American laws, when he was a German citizen doing business in New Zealand. The idea that US law applies to him at all is simply unconscionable.
Re:Misleading Title (Score:5, Insightful)
Extradition does not decide guilt. It decides whether you are the person being sought to face charges in the other jurisdiction and whether the charges are extraditable to the other jurisdiction. Evidence of guilt is mostly irrelevant to those questions.
Extradition and Secret Prisons (aka black sites) = Who cares if you're guilty? We'll throw you in our clink and spend a few years mulling over what we're going to charge you with (see Bradley Manning). All of this is highly unconstitutional, but hey, the world has changed since 9/11, and that's all you need to know.
Dotcom's best hope now is to flee to another country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US.
Re:I wonder if New Zealand can do other tricks too (Score:4, Insightful)
Once the principle of the Bush Doctrine is accepted, then what qualifies, as you ask? Every country will have its own definition, and China's will certainly be different. Even if some international convention is agreed, it will be bypassed. The point is, the US has asserted the right, and others will follow. I contend that this precedent is worse than not implementing the doctrine in the first place, and accepting that the occasional baddie gets away.
Apparently Congress has declared war on Al Qaeda. The US has signed the Geneva Convention. Does the US comply with the convention? I don't think rendered detainees were only asked for their name, rank and number.
Well for better or for worse, this is a globally accepted policy (e.g. UN, NATO, SEATO, ) that resulted in 9/11.
Fixed that for you.