Dotcom keeps assets, for now The US has suffered a setback in the interminable case of Kim Dotcom, with a New Zealand court ruling against the seizure of his assets, for now. The FBI has been seeking assets from Dotcom and his Megaupload co-defendants in NZ, under an order obtained from US courts. New Zealand's deputy solicitor general had authorised the …
From an Los Angeles Times article re: Roman Polanski from 12/2009:
"The doctrine, which dates to the 1800s, holds that defendants who flout the law by fleeing a jurisdiction cannot then call upon the court for help."
I read that as saying that if he was a U.S. citizen, or resident in the U.S. at the time the charges were filed in open court, then "fugitive disentitlement" could be applied to his U.S. assets as he's no longer in the U.S.A. On the other hand, if you blur the lines between the MPAA/RIAA-Justice Department and the FISA/DEA/FBI/NSA/CIA, then you can argue that no matter how impure the law was in the 1800s, it isn't even as pure as that anymore.
I, personally, can't be a fugitive from New Zealand because I've never been there, although, if you want to charge me with something just so you can fly me there and back, go right ahead.
" ... I do have a definite view on US agencies pursuing him in New Zealand."
The USA has the right to pursue alleged criminals out side the USA, just as the alleged criminal has the right to fight this*. There are differing views on the justice of the methods used, and the reaction of the courts/government. I do not yet think that Arkle v Pressdam is the correct response but, I admit, the USA do keep trying to convince me.
*To a greater or lesser extent depending on the fairness of any extradition treaty.
"The USA has the right to pursue alleged criminals out side the USA"
Only where extradition treaties exist, and they must abide by both the letter and spirit of the treaty AND they must abide by the host country's law. The US is decidedly not pursuing this in an honest, transparent or even legal manner.
The US has no rights outside it's own territory that are not granted to it by sovereign nations or multinational treaties (which only exist because sovereign nations consented and then ratified them.) Full fucking stop.
I still don't understand how a court in the US can decide to seize the assets of a person who is not a US citizen, is not and has never lived in the US and is conducting a business outside the US.
Think about it in a personal sense. A court in the US can 'think' you might be guilty of a crime and seize your house and car and bank accounts, without ever proving anything or finding you guilty of anything.
It makes no sense and needs a full and frank explanation from the New Zealand Government.
14th Amendment as presently interpreted by USA courts postulates that USA laws have priority over any other law, rule or legislation in the universe and applies to anyone anywhere.
I always find it entertaining listening to Yanks bitching about international law while their constitution and legal system is explicitly set-up to ignore it.
It is one of the handful of countries in the world (the other notable exemption being UK) where the executive branch is not allowed to negotiate a treaty "unsupervised" and the legislative branch is automatically (unless a special procedure is followed) entitled to amend it as it sees fit _AFTER_ the country's representative has signed it. According to USA law and ratification procedures any of their signatures on an international document have zero value (that is the polite description).
Anywhere else it is a strictly "take it or leave it" affair with the international obligations (once signed) automatically overriding any local law current or future. So if for example Germany or Sweden signs something you can actually rely on them following up on it. USA - you gotta be kidding - you are more likely to have a convicted fraudster honouring his signature on a bounced check.
The 14th amendment does not apply to this case, never did apply and has no involvement here. The 14th amendment applies to the individual States (of America) rights, not international law and applies ONLY to American Citizens. If it applied to Kim it might actually be favorable.
The Constitution and it's Amendments only apply to the USA and it's citizens and Kim Dotcom is not one, he was born in Germany. Trade agreements are another thing and do affect international law.
That's why they should never be agreed to or signed without the involvement of the Public and our elected representatives. Obama is more of a cheating liar than Richard Nixon was for trying to pull this TPP deal in secret and all the other lies he told. He's the one in Hollywoods pocket, him and the whole DoJ.
I won't defend the FBI on this case as it is clearly overreaching and should have never been brought.
Kim Dotcoms issues are that he pissed off Hollywood and the MPAA and used encryption on his site. In turn, they manipulated the US legal system against him. He should be left alone as there is nothing he did that is ANY different than Google or Youtube do every minute of every day.
Here is the 14th amendment section 1. Read the rest at Wikipedia. How you could make that generalization up from reading the amendment I couldn't begin to say.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That volcanic atoll, at least the judiciary, has guts. If it were most any other country, especially Britain, would be lining up tame judges to rush all and any applications through in favour of the USA.
Australia is another brown-nose country.
Perhaps DotCom could consider Russia as an alternative home-from-home?
«If it were most any other country, especially Britain, would be lining up tame judges to rush all and any applications through in favour of the USA.
Australia is another brown-nose country.»
I think it both unkind and unjust of you, JaitchH, to leave my own country, Sweden, out of that short list ; let me assure you that we are as good as any at groveling at the feet of the USA, and far better than most....
Henri
Btw those FEMA coffin storage depos aren't For US citizens but for foreigners.
Once the tpp agreements come in there will be tens of thousands of non US citizens extradited and summarily executed.
Copyright claims, bad mouthing the US, or even this judge who is clearly anti US will be extradited and executed.
In fact soon just writing a message like this one will mean death.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
