

Kim Dotcom Will Go to the US in Exchange for Legal Funds - johnw
http://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcom-will-go-to-the-us-in-exchange-for-legal-funds-120710/

======
SoftwareMaven
Look at his options:

1\. Get bled until nobody will offer legal services to him because they know
he can't pay. Get extradited with a public defendant (if he's lucky). Have a
trial with a lawyer being provided by the DoJ (who happens to be the ones
putting him on trial).

2\. Get extradited with a team of really good lawyers who truly represent him.

There really aren't any options that don't end with him extradited. Why
wouldn't he want to be extradited on his terms rather than the government's.

It also isn't rocket science that, regardless of whether the government is
intentionally trying to get his legal team to desert him, delays are better
for the government than they are for Dotcom.

As a US citizen, this case makes me sick to my stomach. It reeks of America
strong-arming other countries to pursue an agenda that is in only its best
interests. It is made worse by the high-level collusion between the government
and Hollywood. It is topped off by a stinking pile that is a lack of respect
for anybody's intellectual property _except_ Hollywood's and a rotten cherry
of government seizure that prevents somebody from defending themselves in
court.

(I suppose there is a 3rd option where he goes completely underground, but,
again, with no money, that's going to be a tough thing to do.)

~~~
kiba
_As a US citizen, this case makes me sick to my stomach. It reeks of America
strong-arming other countries to pursue an agenda that is in only its best
interests. It is made worse by the high-level collusion between the government
and Hollywood._

Best interest of the United States? What do the US gain from this other than
getting votes for those elected in office and pleasing an insignificant and
corrupt industry we called hollywood?

~~~
briandear
You can blame Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. We all know who Hollywood gives the
majority of their money to, and the people that receive it do their bidding.
Hollywood isn't the problem any more than Google or Facebook's lobbies are the
problem. Follow the money and vote the opposite. Their contributions aren't
secret. We the people have access to the contribution records, yet people
continue to vote for the people getting the money.

~~~
CodeMage
I'm sorry if my question is naive, but it's been bothering me for a while now:
why doesn't anyone consider the lobbying itself to be the root problem? I'm
not from the US, so I haven't grown up with that system and to me it sounds
like legalized corruption.

The only reason I can come up with for allowing lobbying is the same reason
why people want to legalize drugs: illegal corruption would be a lot worse
than legalized corruption. Is that it? Or am I missing something?

~~~
danielweber
For most people it's: "Lobbying is bad when it's for things I don't like."

The ability to petition the government was so important to the Founders that
they wrote it into the First Amendment. (Madison, among others, was hostile to
the Bill Of Rights because he thought those were things that were _obviously_
not allowed to government, and that delineating them would cause people to
think that the Constitution was a list of the people's rights instead of a
list of the powers granted to the government.)

In the modern day, though, the government has so much power and influence over
people's lives that it becomes necessary to spend a significant fraction of
your attention -- or hire someone else to do it -- to government to make sure
they aren't about to legislate you out of existence. See Uber as an example.

Influencing government is usually a zero-sum game that people are forced to
play. It would be swell if "the other side" unilaterally disarmed so we could
disarm, too, but they don't trust us any more than we trust them.

~~~
CodeMage
Again, I seem to be missing something. Isn't there a great deal of difference
between "petitioning the government" and "paying the government"?

Here's an excerpt from briandear's comment about lobbying:

 _We all know who Hollywood gives the majority of their money to, and the
people that receive it do their bidding. Hollywood isn't the problem any more
than Google or Facebook's lobbies are the problem._

It look pretty clear to me that there is some sort of mechanism in United
States whereby people/organizations pay money to steer the government. That's
what I was inquiring about.

~~~
danielweber
Petitioning the government _is_ lobbying the government. That's what lobbying
is, no more or no less.

I don't speak for the other commenter and wouldn't think to explain his
comment. However, when people speak about the government being bought, they
generally mean one of three things, correctly or not:

1\. Lobbying. Someone spends a lot of money to hire people with connections
who can catch the ear of government.

2\. Campaign donations. You can donate money directly to someone's campaign,
or even exercise your free speech rights yourself to endorse or criticize
someone's campaign.

3\. Simple bribery. This is when you find a Senator with a few hundred
thousand dollars of cash in his freezer.

------
picklefish
When I saw that the extradition was postponed to March 2013 I figured it was
another move by the US to draw this saga out as long as possible.

It makes sense for Kim and his team to respond "screw that we're coming over
now and you hurry this shit up so we can win our case and start our business
back up." His lawyers must believe without a doubt that they have this case in
the bag.

It seems fairly obvious that from the beginning this case was designed to take
a long time in court, in order to keep megaupload down as long as possible. By
keeping their assets frozen and postponing court dates the US is continuing to
"win" this battle.

~~~
yardie
I'm curious to know if he waived his right to speedy trial? If he hasn't, his
US legal team is ready, and the prosecutor isn't this will be over in 30 days.

------
rickmb
It's a cheap challenge, because he knows it will never be answered.

He'll be lucky if the DOJ gives some generic statement about the quality of
justice in the US, but most likely it will be ignored completely. Even
acknowledging this challenge would be stepping into a minefield, and the DOJ
is not that stupid.

------
mixmax
There's something I don't quite understand. If you're accused of a crime in
the US how can all your assets be frozen by the government and your website
taken offline? Aren't you innocent until proved guilty?

If the answer is that it's suspected that all the money comes from illegal
activity and therefore frozen until a judge rules on whether this is the case
or not what would stop the US government from prosecuting, for example, Larry
Page, take all his money and shut down Google until he has been to court?
Which he can't pay for because he doesn't have any money.

Can you really just indite someone and convince a judge to freeze all his
accounts before there has even been a trial?

~~~
briandear
The Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984 allows it and US v. Monsanto upheld
it. Since this is being prosecuted under RICO, it's lawful and Constitutional.
Let's not forget that the US is only one of at least five countries involved
in this case. No one has accused or has evidence that Larry Page has done
anything illegal. But if there was evidence that page is violating RICO, then
try can take his stuff until trial as well. As far as innocent until proven
guilty, that actually isn't in the Constitution, it's based in English Common
Law -- Dotcom's right aren't being violated as he is getting due process. Of
course, te current situation of extradition requires a much lower standard of
proof, the standard here is whether or not there is evidence that warrants a
trial; effectively like a grand jury deliberation.

------
Jach
If his Biden assertions have any merit, then this is coming straight from the
top. It makes perfect sense to delay the case until after elections. (Not to
mention all the other legal tactics mentioned here.)

------
trotsky
If the funds are subject to asset seizure the DOJ would never release them in
a situation like this. If they got a conviction there'd be nothing left - all
paid to his surprisingly expensive legal team based in the caymans. Even the
dumbest feds ever would see that coming a mile away.

~~~
josteink
So lets not give the man a chance to a fair trial with his own attorneys paid
with his own money, because by the law we are innocent until proven guilty,
_and we know he is a slimeball who will screw us_.

Yeah. That sounds reasonable. The US is fucking this one up.

Not a single move so far has followed due process. Every move has been corrupt
or illegal, ruled so by a judge. Not a single statement issued so far
reassures that they will start following the rules.

I think we can safely say _which_ side of this story is the dishonest and
convicted one and it's not Dotcom.

------
danielweber
And funds for "living expenses." What's that bill come to for a guy with his
own fleet of Ferraris?

~~~
ori_b
His accounts were frozen by the FBI, so he has no accessible money right now.
He's not asking the government for a handout, but for them to unfreeze the
money he already owns.

To quote the tweet the story is based around, _“Hey DOJ, we will go to the US.
No need for extradition. We want bail, funds unfrozen for lawyers & living
expenses,”_

------
mtgx
So the US's Government's tactic is to delay the extradition trial until he's
left with no money to defend himself...and then win by default. Is that what
they call "justice"?

~~~
res0nat0r
Does anyone on HN actually read about this case from credible sources or just
parrot the biased reporting from Torrentfreak that Dotcom is a hero because he
gave you free movies?

Dotcoms laywers agreed to delaying his extradition hearing until next year
because it is not possible for it to take place next month due to all of the
still outstanding issues related to his mansion raid possibly being illegal.
It has nothing at all to do with the DOJ trying to screw him by delaying the
trial.

[http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&obj...](http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10818588)

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/megaupload-founder-
ki...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/megaupload-founder-kim-dotcoms-
extradition-hearing-is-delayed/2012/07/10/gJQA2EFRbW_story.html)

~~~
yardie
Dotcom would disagree:

> Dotcom complained about the delay in postings on Twitter today.

“Dirty delay tactics by the U.S.,” he wrote on the social media site. “They
destroyed my business. Took all my assets. Time does the rest.”

The NZ prosecutor and DOJ screwed this so badly they'll need at least a year
to get the same response. In the meantime, the business is still shut and no
one is getting paid.

------
w1ntermute
Too bad he caved. There's no way he'll get a fair trial, not in the Land of
the Free.

------
Kelliot
Are the DoJ scared of an innocent man and a team of highly skilled lawyers?

------
nsns
While I support his fight, I believe this simply adds to a long tradition in
politics of offering "tempting" concessions the other side can never accept,
for publicity and other purposes.

------
batgaijin
Has anyone ever double checked the megaupload business model? Like, comparing
how much s3 would cost to store all the data, and how many customers?

I couls never get it to work out...

------
briandear
I wonder why the most common HN post on this topic comes from torrentfreak --
certainly they're objective in this case.

------
J3L2404
"Prosecutors and Dotcom’s lawyers agreed to the delay" - Washington Post

Looks like his lawyers sold him out.

~~~
MrBlue
How do you equate that sentence with him being sold out?

~~~
J3L2404
Shouldn't he have had his lawyers protest the delay so he can be quickly
exonerated by his overwhelming innocence.

~~~
obto
He had 2 options:

1\. Agree to the trial being delayed for 9 months so the US can return the
evidence... which really should only take a couple days

2\. Go forward with the trial without the evidence proving he's innocent.

I really wouldn't say they sold him out

------
ldargin
IANAL: If he wants a speedy trial, and is concerned about legal fees, he
should just go the U.S. on his own. Any delay at this point only helps the
prosecution, giving them more time to research the case.

------
cjensen
He is willing to face trial if they give him money first? That's not how
Justice works in any modern country. His lawyers presumably told him as much,
so this is just another bizarre plea for attention.

~~~
dangrossman
He's asking for access to _his money_ in _his bank accounts_ that the US had
frozen so that he can pay his lawyers.

~~~
cjensen
And? Lots of people get their assets frozen. They don't get to make demands as
a precondition of submitting to justice.

Asking for special conditions that are never granted can only mean one of two
things: either he is utterly ignorant of how law works or he is just trolling
for more attention.

I choose to view him as non-ignorant, but since my view is not fawning,
apparently I get a massive karma downgrade. I'll live.

~~~
ktizo
Well, actually he has precedent in his favour.

CFTC v. Walsh: District Court Releases Funds Frozen in Civil Case to Pay for
Attorney in Parallel Criminal Case:
[http://www.columbialawreview.org/articles/comment-cftc-v-
wal...](http://www.columbialawreview.org/articles/comment-cftc-v-walsh-
district-court-releases-funds-frozen-in-civil-case-to-pay-for-attorney-in-
parallel-criminal-case)

Also, how else do you get to have funds released other than through petition?
And he has already submitted to the justice system, otherwise he wouldn't be
turning up in court.

~~~
cjensen
I don't disagree with what you said. But the topic was in regard to someone
refusing to submit to justice unless their conditions were met. The point is,
he must submit to the court before the court can grant his petition.

~~~
ktizo
He hasn't refused, he is fighting extradition in court. How can he have
refused to submit to justice if he is taking part in court proceedings?
Submitting to justice is not the same as doing whatever you are told, at least
not since the establishment of habeas corpus as a standard.

~~~
cjensen
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the funds are frozen by the US, not NZ.
"Submitting to Justice" does not mean "Submit to Prosecutor." It means making
yourself available to the Court for the purpose of defending yourself at risk
of being found guilty and punished.

US Courts are not going to consider the petitions of someone who won't show up
to Court. For example, Roman Polanski wishes to petition the US Courts
regarding his Criminal Case. The US Courts correctly refuse to hear those
petitions so long as Polanski is hiding from the Court.

~~~
ktizo
The funds are seized and frozen by Hong Kong and New Zealand at the request of
the US authorities, which is how he has already managed to get some of it back
from the New Zealand authorites.

