

Megaupload Points Out That The Feds Want To Destroy Relevant Evidence - tilt
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120406/12172918409/megaupload-points-out-that-feds-want-to-destroy-relevant-evidence-its-case.shtml

======
tptacek
Techdirt (of course) acts like the forfeiture of MU's assets is unprecedented,
but SCOTUS established more than 20 years ago that the direct proceeds from
illegal enterprises can't be used to fund the legal fees of the accused:

 _A defendant has no Sixth Amendment right to spend another person's money for
services rendered by an attorney, even if those funds are the only way that
that defendant will be able to retain the attorney of his choice. Such money,
though in his possession, is not rightfully his._

And, of course, the case against MU is far more straightforward than Techdirt
implies.

Stories like this (the Slashdot "Your Rights Online" stuff) are the only
things from Techdirt that routinely make it to the front page of HN, but it's
worth noting (and I'm not the only person to note it; I got tipped off to this
by 'tzs, who went to law school) that Techdirt _sucks_ at legal analysis.

~~~
jpdoctor
> _that the direct proceeds from illegal enterprises can't be used to fund the
> legal fees of the accused_

I like how the determination that something is an illegal enterprise did not
require a trial. Our gov't must save a lot of money that way.

~~~
tedivm
No, this guy quoting things is wrong. In the case he's referring to the
defendant plea bargained and admitted guilt. They said he couldn't use the
money, because it was an established fact (to which he himself confessed) that
it was illegally gotten.

Whenever you see someone quote SCOTUS without providing the case, assuming
they're taking shit out of context to prove a point. This guy even altered the
quote slightly to make it harder to find, but the case itself is here
-[http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/491/491.US.617.87-1...](http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/491/491.US.617.87-1729.html)

------
aw3c2
[http://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/news/2012/04/megaupload-e...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/news/2012/04/megaupload-erasing-our-servers-as-the-us-wants-would-deny-
us-a-fair-trial.ars) seems like a better source

------
billpatrianakos
I don't quite understand something. If I'm not mistaken, defendants in an US
court have the right to know what evidence will be used against them in a
timely manner. It's called discovery. So if MU were to destroy the evidence
now that would me both the prosecution and defendant would have no evidence,
right? So I'd assume the prosecution has a copy of any evidence and _that_
would be disclosed to MU's attorneys before the trial. So MU wouldn't hold on
to the evidence but it'd be out there somewhere.

Right? I feel like an idiot. I feel like I've noticed something so simple that
somehow it was already explained but I'm still not getting it.

~~~
pyre
Once the only evidence is in possession of the prosecutor, they are legally
required to provide it all to you. On the other hand, things can often get
'lost,' 'misplaced,' or 'forgotten' that are crucial to the defense's case. I
assume that MegaUpload wants access to the servers to extract the evidence
themselves.

~~~
tptacek
I gather that what makes this problematic is the expense of recovering
evidence from the servers, as the hosting company is owed millions of dollars
for them. MU does not have millions of dollars anymore.

~~~
meric
>> MU does not have millions of dollars anymore.

They do not have _access_ to it.

Whether they still have millions of dollars is as yet undecided.

