US Seizure of Kim Dotcom's Assets Will Stand, Says Appeals Court (arstechnica.com) 166
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday in favor of the American government's seizure of a large number of Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom's overseas assets. Seized items include millions of dollars in various seized bank accounts in Hong Kong and New Zealand, multiple cars, four jet skis, the Dotcom mansion, several luxury cars, two 108-inch TVs, three 82-inch TVs, a $10,000 watch, and a photograph by Olaf Mueller worth over $100,000. After years of delay, in December 2015, Dotcom was finally ordered to be extradited to the United States to face criminal charges. But his appeal is set to be heard before the High Court in Auckland on August 29. In its court filings, prosecutors argued that because Dotcom had not appeared to face the charges against him in the United States, he is therefore susceptible to "fugitive disentitlement." That legal theory posits that if a defendant has fled the country to evade prosecution, he or she cannot make a claim to the assets that the government wants to seize under civil forfeiture. But as the Dotcom legal team claimed, the U.S. can neither use its legal system to seize assets abroad nor can Dotcom be considered a fugitive if he has never set foot in the United States. However, the 4th Circuit disagreed: "Because the statute must apply to people with no reason to come to the United States other than to face charges, a "sole" or "principal" purpose test cannot stand. The principal reason such a person remains outside the United States will typically be that they live elsewhere. A criminal indictment gives such a person a reason to make the journey, and the statute is aimed at those who resist nevertheless." Civil forfeiture in the United States allows law enforcement to seize one's assets if they are believed to be illegally acquired -- even without filing any criminal charges.
Civil Forfeiture (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazing to think that US civil forfeiture laws apply even if the alleged crimes were committed by a German/Finnish citizen, living in New Zealand.
Re:Civil Forfeiture (Score:5, Insightful)
terrifying really. If i wanted to live under US law i would live in the US, The over reach of american courts is frankly disgusting. I hope the world soon realizes that America is the tyrant and not the victim
Even plenty of Americans do... (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is most of what they do the other big shot caller countries also do, and while they will squabble with each other over wealth and territory, it is not beyond them to band together to squash upstarts making inroads into their dominion (which DotCom and his cronies could be said to have.)
The consequences of this are far more widespread. Given US forfeiture within AND without the country the US Dollar should no longer be considered a trustworthy currency (while they can confiscate anything they want, USDs explicitly allow that since they are considered property of the US Government loaned to an individual as a promissary note of debt, which can be revoked at any time as they themselves will often state. Especially in regards to pennies being used for (more than their face value as) scrap metal.)
At this point you don't just need to emigrate away from the US (if a citizen), or avoid doing business with Americans (if a foreigner), but you also have to watch out for their extra-territorial policing whether under the guise of the UN, or under the excuse of their own Divine Mandate.
Re:Even plenty of Americans do... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet another reason to oppose the TPP. What I've never understood about the civil theft thing is what part of the Constitution allows them to steal property from someone without even filing charges, much less a conviction. If they had dragged this guy into a US court and convicted him then I can see them taking his stuff as it would be proven to be ill gotten gains. Instead they just come take it all and then they might or might not try and convict him. I wonder where they get the right to do that?
Re: (Score:1)
Dragged to court for what? He's never been to the US, how can he have commited a crime there? This beggars belief, and makes a mockery of the entire US justice system.
Re: (Score:3)
He had a server located in Virginia. That is how this started.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The way they reason to seize assets is that they bring criminal charges against the actual object.. Since the object is not a person they don't have any lawyer looking out for it's interests.. For someone to manage to get it back they will have to spend a ton of money to fight for getting the objects back.
If you want more information just search for "Civil Forfeiture"
Easy watching video that describes the issues...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The object is asserted to be obviously used in, or gotten from, criminal activity. Like a knife plunged into someone's back, it is seized.
That is the theory. The flaw is the ease with which government can seize things with little actual justification. A wad of cash gets seized because, like the stacked books in the original Ghostbusters, no person would actually do it that way. So it must be crime cash.
This is wrong. Now throw in the police get to keep and use that cash (or sales from seized stuff) for
Re: (Score:2)
Of course in a sane world the guys in the white coats would come put you in the truck for seriously suggesting such a procedure could be legitimate.
Re:Even plenty of Americans do... (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats the thing.. The US Constitution does NOT allow civil forfeiture.. The 4th Amendment prohibits that shit, but the US government cares not for what the Constitution says, and the Supreme Court plays right along..
Re:Even plenty of Americans do... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet another reason to oppose the TPP. What I've never understood about the civil theft thing is what part of the Constitution allows them to steal property from someone without even filing charges, much less a conviction. If they had dragged this guy into a US court and convicted him then I can see them taking his stuff as it would be proven to be ill gotten gains. Instead they just come take it all and then they might or might not try and convict him. I wonder where they get the right to do that?
Actually this is closer to the original use case for civil forfeiture which dates back to common law, which was foreign pirate ships and privateers. Since the owners could not be brought to trial, their ships were put on trial and confiscated. The trouble here is that you have foreign governments that play along, seizing assets in their own country because the US alleges he's done something illegal. Could you imagine the US seizing assets from a US citizen who's never been to Germany which he can't get back unless he goes to Germany to stand trial for selling Nazi memorabilia to a German - a crime under German law - or some such?
Re:oppose (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So, theoretically, after this ruling, the US could file criminal charges against every non-American citizen in the world. Those who refuse to show up to the court case forfeit all of their assets regardless of where those assets are.
Boom, America owns 99% of everything in the world. I think we just won the game, boys.
Re:Even plenty of Americans do... (Score:4, Interesting)
You should read the American Constitution sometime, I see an AC even posted a link. You'll find that the only parts that are limited to citizens are political, things like voting and running for office. The rest limits the government or states the obvious human rights by referring to people.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What gives you that idea? Other than a very few things where citizenship is singled out as a requirement, the Constitution outlines what the government may do and calls out a few things it specifically may not do (even though it does a few of the don'ts) for or to anyone anywhere.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Its pretty fucking disgusting to us here in the US too.. The US government is totally out of control... May God Help us...
Re:Tyrants (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
If you don't like it you can just move.. oh wait..
Re: (Score:2)
I'm American and I agree with you. I'm amazed at what other governments and peoples are willing to tolerate.
Re: (Score:3)
Amazing to think that US civil forfeiture laws apply even if the alleged crimes were committed by a German/Finnish citizen, living in New Zealand.
And the assets seized were not even in the U.S. New Zealand and Hong Kong bank accounts as well as various physical goods including a mansion!
Re:Civil Forfeiture (Score:5, Funny)
various physical goods including a mansion!
who cares about mansions? They can keep the mansions.
the real story here is, why did he own two 108 inch TV and three 82 inch TV? That's like having a harem made of two top models and three merely pretty women. What's the rationale? Did he start with the smaller ones and decided to upgrade later, rotating them between living room and bedroom? Or did he have the 102 inch for himself and installed the 82 inch in guest rooms?
thhey never give the important details in those articles.
Re: (Score:2)
I got a chuckle out of this comment.
Re:Civil Forfeiture (Score:5, Funny)
why did he own two 108 inch TV and three 82 inch TV?
Perhaps he has a house with more than one room, and those being of different sizes. Screens are supposed to be of an optimum size according to viewing distance. Not everyone lives in a one-room basement.
Re:Civil Forfeiture (Score:4, Funny)
Not everyone lives in a one-room basement.
That's true, I know someone who lives in his Mothers one room attic. He often rants about the meme about basements.
Re: (Score:2)
The mansion was rented. Dotcom didn't own it. And therefore it wasn't seized.
It's since been sold by the owners.
More likely it had a mortgage. The American government has no problem seizing property such as hotels where a tenant did something illegal but they only like to seize stuff that's paid off.
Re:Civil Forfeiture (Score:5, Informative)
Just call it what it is: Theft. Theft committed by a vindictive cadre of criminals who operate above the law, using the law as their truncheon.
Re: (Score:1)
It's worse than theft, actually. It's robbery; threat of force (or actual force, in some cases) is involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you can prove the foreiture was unjust, and get it back, but that's a little like getting punched and then 10 years later being allowed to punch back. At that point, the goalposts have probably moved.
Re: Civil Forfeiture (Score:4, Insightful)
That's bullshit. Pure fucking bullshit. In the Unites States legal system, the accused is not supposed to have to prove their innocence. The burden of proof is supposed to be with the prosecution or the plaintiff, whichever is appropriate. There is supposed to be a presumption of innocence. Civil forfeiture is a blatant violation of this. Nobody should ever have to prove that their assets were obtained legally. It should be the responsibility of law enforcement to prove that the accused obtained the assets illegally. It is fucking shameful that civil forfeiture is allowed to be used against American citizens, let alone extending it beyond American borders against someone who has never been in the United States. I'm an American citizen and I'm outraged by the behavior of my own government. We'd have a great country if we'd only follow our own damn Constitution.
Re: Civil Forfeiture (Score:1)
Obviously they are robbing him to make it more difficult for him to defend himself.
He oughta set up a legal defense fund. I'd gladly donate.
Guilty Until Proven Innocent (Score:5, Insightful)
That's bullshit. Pure fucking bullshit. In the Unites States legal system, the accused is not supposed to have to prove their innocence. The burden of proof is supposed to be with the prosecution or the plaintiff, whichever is appropriate. There is supposed to be a presumption of innocence. Civil forfeiture is a blatant violation of this.
Sure, in the idealized version you heard about from parents and teachers as a kid. IRL, "innocent until proven guilty" is barely a thing. You have fewer rights after you are proven guilty, but nobody is *really* assuming you're innocent after you get arrested but before your trial ends. Not the cops, not the jury, not the prosecutor, not your attorney, NOBODY. Nobody is assuming you are innocent.
That doesn't mean a jury can't look at the evidence and decide you're innocent. They can. Occasionally they do. And the government has to put together a case (if you insist on it), and if the holes in it are big enough you have a shot that the jury says "maybe you're innocent after all, and that's reasonable doubt."
But everybody, everywhere, always assumes that you're guilty. 95%+ of American Criminal Law is plea bargaining, and if "innocent until proven guilty" were really a thing, then we would have a revolution before allowing a system like plea bargaining to dominate our justice system. Because plea bargains are basically coercing defendants (Whether innocent or guilty) into pleading guilty with no possibility of trial or appeal, in exchange for not being locked up for years or decades. It's not a punishment for having committed the crime--as a practical matter, it's a punishment for insisting on a trial.
Re: (Score:3)
95%+ of American Criminal Law is plea bargaining, and if "innocent until proven guilty" were really a thing, then we would have a revolution before allowing a system like plea bargaining to dominate our justice system. Because plea bargains are basically coercing defendants (Whether innocent or guilty) into pleading guilty with no possibility of trial or appeal, in exchange for not being locked up for years or decades. It's not a punishment for having committed the crime--as a practical matter, it's a punishment for insisting on a trial.
I read a study once about US people convicted of rape prior to the existence of DNA evidence who were later acquitted, a disturbing number of them had at some point before or during the trial plead guilty because they realized the odds were so stacked against them it was better to falsely confess and take the plea bargain. I think for practical purposes there needs to be some kickback for confessing - in Norwegian courts it's typically 10-30% with up to 50% in extreme cases where you've either been helped t
Re: (Score:3)
But everybody, everywhere, always assumes that you're guilty.
Have the courage to speak for yourself. Everyone here wants you to do that.
Re: (Score:1)
Have you seen how some of this cases get manipulated? It's the "United States v. SOME_OBJECT". It's not a case against the owner, it's a case against the money, pearl necklace, etc. Then they claim you have "no standing" in the case, so step aside, and your task to prove the case as unjust becomes that much harder.
And naturally, these kinds of laws are used against those in protected positions of power and influence. Just against the plebs.
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing is they don't actually have to prove anything. Let's say they take all your stuff and don't even charge you. Or they charge you and you're found "not guilty" in court. So you turn to the feds and say "Hey, since I haven't been found guilty of anything, can I have my stuff back?"
"No," they explain.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing to think that US civil forfeiture laws apply even if the alleged crimes were committed by a German/Finnish citizen, living in New Zealand.
This is why I think that corporations and individuals that hide money overseas to avoid taxation are justified on purely moral grounds. A justice system that has to steal rather than allowing due process to determine guilt and financial liability has lost its right to govern. It exercises power when it sees the opportunity, and its opponents exercise stealth. I no longer see the difference.
Re: (Score:1)
Except this part of the write-up is bullshit:
The above is completely irrelevant. Although this part of the US law is an outrage, Mr. Dotcom is not affected by that.
First, plenty of charges aga
Re: (Score:1)
I think you are missing the point...
Why would you travel to another country to face charges when you are not a citizen of that country?
So every girl in the world should to some country in the middle east and face sharia law because they think it applies world wide?
There is absolutely no difference between the two. The fact is that the US has a history of over stepping boundries and putting their noses in other peoples business. Most countries are scared shitless of being on the US bad side but I can promi
Re: (Score:2)
If some kook of a prosecutor in yourassismineistan filed charges against you, would you go over there on your own dime (no less) to answer them?
Re: (Score:1)
If that's what my local laws say — and New Zealand does have the necessary treaties with the US — I will...
The point was — and remains — Dotcom is not suffering from the "civil forfeiture" laws as the term is usually understood and the write-up is incorrect in this part.
Re: (Score:2)
His extradition is still under appeal. That is, his local laws have not yet made a final ruling on if he is required to go or not. Surely, you would avail yourself of a legal opportunity to not be extradited. That same extradition agreement you held up says this is his legal right.
Re: (Score:1)
Again, American civil forfeiture laws and procedures — which, scandalously, allow the Executive to confiscate property without even making (much less proving) an accusation — are irrelevant to Dotcom's case and should not ha
Re: (Score:2)
It is still civil forfeiture, it's just a different aspect of it. That is, it is a forfeiture that happens in the absence of a criminal conviction.
Re: Civil Forfeiture (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Did anyone really think this was anything more than a sham? If you're not one of the people playing on the side of the "usurpers", you're nobody. They will seize everything you have the moment they want to, and if you're not a particularly nice or just person to begin with, you're a prime target so they can make an example of you. That makes it easier to stomach all the similar people on the "right" side of the law who get away with being just as seedy and unpleasant, and keeps people from thinking they sho
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but they are redefining the Constitution by appointing judges who feel they should use the bench to legislate by interpreting so as to allow whatever the government wants to do.
Re: (Score:1)
it is my responsibility to enforce all the laws that haven't been passed yet. it is also my responsibility to alert each and every one of you to the potential consequences of various ordinary everyday activities you might be performing which could eventually lead to *the death penalty*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah well, considering the lack of resistance as pointed out above (unjustly modded down) [slashdot.org], it really does hardly matter what you call it. The people have spoken, they approve, and that's that. Since they can't be bothered, let's call it a day and have a cold one.
Re: (Score:2)
Still, the concept is nonsense. They file criminal charges against property, which, being inanimate, cannot possibly commit any act of any sort.
Re: I will only be happy about this when (Score:5, Interesting)
Keep in mind that what 2014, 2015 was the year the US government seized more money through this civil forfeiture program than the total money US citizens reported stolen.
So, by that measure, it's a very successful program.
One crook stealing from another (Score:2)
I really have a hard time taking sides in this one.
Rule of thumb (Score:5, Insightful)
I really have a hard time taking sides in this one.
Rule of thumb: ignore the character of the person, reserve judgement for the law.
It sometimes helps to remove the person from the equation and substitute someone blameless.
For example, imagine yourself in that situation: as you imagine this happening to you, do you think it is just?
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong question. I doubt that many crooked politicians being caught embezzling thought it was just because they think that they're above the law. Justice and just may have the same root, but they have little to do with each other in legal reality.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I think somebody mistook his chewable Ritalin for gum again...
Can they take Polanski's assets too? (Score:5, Insightful)
A: Obviously not. Copyright violation is to some rogue agencies a far more heinous crime than violently raping a child and fleeing the country to escape justice.
It's utterly ridiculous how overblown this "war against piracy" is.
Re: (Score:2)
Some ppl are special and Polanski is one of those. Things like rape are of no consequence to someone like him.
Re:Can they take Polanski's assets too? (Score:4, Informative)
Polanski's case is slightly more complex than you make out - he pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a minor under a plea deal with the prosecutor. Under that plea deal, he served 42 days in prison for psychiatric evaluation and under the terms of the plea deal he was to serve probation for the rest of his sentence. No one prosecuting the case was pushing for long term prison time, and the prosecutors, psychiatrists and probation officers were all pushing for probation only.
However, it became apparent to Polanski that the judge was going to throw out the terms of the plea deal, and sentence him to prison under the guilty plea, so Polanski decided the court couldn't be trusted and left the country.
Lets be clear here, right up to that point, the court had utterly no problem letting Polanski travel back and forth to Europe to finish projects during the course of the trial, and Polanski could have absconded at any point prior to his psychiatric evaluation period, but he didn't - it wasn't until it became apparent the judge was going to let the guilty plea stand while throwing out the deal attached to that plea that Polanski absconded.
So yes, Polanski did a horrible thing - but the judge in his case caused his absconding and acted disgustingly. Numerous US judges and officials have said that there was misconduct by the judge in his case, and even his victim has filed to have the charges withdrawn or dismissed, but neither can happen if the defendant doesnt appear in court - which obviously isnt going to happen, and Polanski isnt going to be satisfied with any guarantees from a US judge at this point in time.
Re: (Score:2)
Not for the purposes of comparing with copyright violation.
The special pleading you've put up applies to just about all convicted criminals - Judges are "cruel" sometimes, especially in the case of violent crimes (you've pretended here that an outright violent rape with injury was not just because age definitions also apply - a nauseating bit of revisionist apologism really).
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of the crime at hand, if the judge throws out the deal, the plea should go with it and the case returned to trial - numerous people see an issue with what the judge did in Polanski's case, so perhaps its you with the problem here.
I've also not pretended anything - you seem to have an agenda here, one at odds with the facts of the case.
Re: (Score:2)
The job of a Judge is to consider things like that and choose what degree of punishment to apply.
Yet nothing ruled - just grumbles - if they are real that is and not just part of the PR that was applied.
Bullshit. If it's about
Re: (Score:3)
Hey kid - wanna buy a bridge?
.How naive can you get?
Re: (Score:2)
This crap started during Clinton and grew steadily crazier through Bush. It remains crazy through Obama. What makes you think the GOP will fix it now when it didn't before?
Waiting to see the potential blowback from this. (Score:1)
I am really surprised we haven't seen US citizens taken abroad by ISIS or some middle eastern country and held trial for breaking their laws while in the US or Europe or some other place.
This gives them every ounce of legal justification they would need.
If the US can charge and extradite foreign citizens whom never set foot or attacked the nation in any way, shape, or form to stand trial, then they give other nations that same authorization.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, they aren't going to saw Kim's head off with a dull knife. As bad as I deplore the abuse of the law by US prosecutors to compare it to some group of savages picking people at random to slaughter is insane. To think it's in any way comparable demonstrates that you are fucking crazy. In the end of all this crap I'd bet Kim ends up back home minus some property but alive and although he should be presumed innocent by the courts you, I, him and everyone else knows he's guilty as hell.
Re: (Score:1)
If it makes your comparison easier, the US also murder people in foreign countries that have never been to the US or broken US laws.
US Courts have no power over DotCom (Score:5, Interesting)
Dotcom is outside of the United States and beyond the control of the district court. No order of the district court can be binding on him because he is ultimately not in the hands of the district court. He is subject to the control of the courts of New Zealand and Hong Kong.
See Republic National Bank of Miami v. United States, 506 U.S. 80, 87 (1992).
The district court's forfeiture order therefore merely advises the courts of a foreign sovereign that (in the district court's view under the laws of the United States) the United States should have title to the assets. Those courts, of course, with control of the property and with the authority vested in them by their own sovereigns, remain free to revise, overturn, or refuse recognition to the judgment of the district court..
In fact, the district court recognized that the foreign courts "may or may not" register its order and that "New Zealand courts may continue to litigate the issue of whether the assets will be forfeited. The government also concedes that "even with a valid forfeiture order, the fugitive's property may suffer no adverse effect."
Re: (Score:1)
That's a detail that should have probably made it into the summary. No foreign assets have been seized. Yet.
I wonder what treaties and agreements come into play with this sort of thing, though, and how much leeway NZ really has in this.
Stand and deliver (Score:1)
It's tempting to say... 'well its all assets abroad and therefore foreign courts will protect his right to due process' (which is what he's doing when challenging his extradition, it's due process!)..
*but*, if he had assets in the US, those would be seized on this basis. The basis, that using due process in another country, makes him a US fugitive is clearly false. That foreign courts *might* have some leeway to fix up a mistake in the US court does not make this alright. Some treaties don't permit any leew
Then ALL assets can be seized (Score:5, Insightful)
So all assets of everyone can be seized.
Because the US can lay charges against ANYONE in the world, and then seize their assets anywhere because they refuse to come to the US to face charges. That would make a mockery of jurisdiction and international treaties. They're only charges, US police can charge anyone with anything, it is just a piece of paper for them.
This is the 5 eyes taint. 5 eyes countries turned their spy machines on their own people, and their governments are shaped by that surveillance. A choice here, a leak there, a whisper, a threat. Notice how 5 eyes looks more and more like post war Eastern Block countries of the Soviet Union.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The 5 Eyes are now places of evil to stay away from.
It's worse than that (Score:2, Informative)
Dotcom hasn't evaded the US charges, he's used his right of appeal in New Zealand to challenge the extradition. The US court is claiming that a legal right in another country constitutes evasion in the US, that lets them seize assets.
In other words, foreign legal rights are null and void. Regardless of he extradition treaties and agreements, the court views use of those rights as evading charges.
The other omission: Dotcom was spied on by the New Zealand spies. They are not supposed to spy on New Zealand but
Re: (Score:1)
Why would the world hate the US? (Score:1)
Its beyond wonderland that American's allow their government to prosecute citizens of other countries and take foreign wealth and assign the proceeds to a US court. - And foreign governments allow their citizens to prosecuted and abused this way.
Is no one concerned that this sort of national thievery will lead to additional aggression against the US? This is worse than WW 1 reparations because its simply claimed a not insignificant portion of NZ GDP. This is more similar to the colonial pillaging of Afri
Pulling the rug out (Score:2)
Even more to the point, how could he then afford to mount a defence against anything he is accused of, since his assets have been taken?
Re: (Score:2)
because...reasons.
now pick up that can, citizen.
Just Mean (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if Kim Dotcom were to ring the United States DoJ and request a lift to the US, he'd have a "courtesy plane" waiting to pick him up within the hour
Yes, and if he asked I am sure the DoJ would tell him why he wouldn't be needing a return ticket.
You will be given a fair trial, then executed
Goes to show ... (Score:2)
... legal action often is and only can be an approximation of justice. In fact, legal action usually is done when justice has been abandoned.
That powerful men with lots of money have the power to give a fat loud prankster and charlatan a hard time and go after him with very 'imaginative' ways shouldn't be of any surprise. Watching them actually do it is some absurd spectacle though, I have to admit.
Government Theft (Score:2)
broke (Score:1)
The US courts steal all your assets so you can't afford to fight the charges, you are guilty of anything they want to charge you with.
This needs to be abolished. (Score:2)
What you could call criminal civil forfeiture in the United States (specifically, civil forfeiture done by police agencies or prosecutors in response to alleged crimes but without a criminal conviction) is incredibly corrupt and corrrupting and should be abolished completely.
If the State wants to seize someone's assets in response to a crime, let them mount a case and get a criminal conviction. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. It boggles my mind that the judicial system in the United States pretend
This is a huge deal, potentially a scary precedent (Score:2)
Declare and Sieze Assets: A new Economic Policy (Score:2)
So, according to this ruling, all the U.S. needs to do to control global industry is declare businesses crimes. Then seize business assets whether there is an official finding of guilt or not. Keep in mind that this has been to actually been to trial yet. Under U.S. law the defendant s innocent until proven guilty by trial.
Any country doing business with the U.S. should be wary of this type of anticompetitive, legalistic, economic activity. If this can happen to Kim Dotcom it can also happen to Sony, Toyota
So they took it by charging the object (Score:2)
This behaviour shoudl be illegal regardless (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Buffoons like you are determine to water down "treason" until the term means nothing any longer. That's as bad as anything the lawyers are doing.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that even the biggest cunt on the planet should be treated fairly and with justice.
I leave it to the reader to determine whether I'm referring to the US Government or Kim Dotcom.
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK DotCom didn't have any money or assets in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
He can come to the USA and face the charges, or he can flee.
So asserting rights in court (i.e. fighting extradition) counts as 'fleeing'? Does submitting a pretrial motion to suppress count as 'fleeing'? Turning down a plea deal? Pleading 'not guilty'? This seriously takes the legalistic redefinition of words to the next level.
Suppose he transfers $10000 into a USA account
Then those assets would be subject to US jurisdiction - it's the seizing of assets that are in other countries that's causing people the most concern. It suggests that I may be protected by extradition rules (e.g. dual criminality - I have fre
Re: (Score:2)
It make legal sense, but the legal sense that it makes is that the police are a gang of thieves that are ok because the laws say so.
What they are doing is theft without trial, and thus in violation of the constitution. "...secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...". If a warrant was issued in this case, then the judge should be charged with malfeasance.
An injustice being stamped "OK" by a court doesn't turn wrong into right, it turns the court into
Re: (Score:2)
You use this word "flee." I do not think it means what you pretend it means.
You want to seize something, get a conviction. Anything else is theft, and you should be ashamed to state anything to the contrary.
Re: (Score:2)
We gotta thin out his numbers!