It's pretty well known that the warrants issued in New Zealand were invalid, but I don't think it's widely known how weak the US warrents were.
Here's an example of how far the government stretched the truth in order to get the warrant. According to Dotcom, in a previous investigation: "The FBI asked us for uploader information regarding 39 files and told us to keep their investigation confidential. We assisted and obviously didn’t touch the uploader accounts or files because of the ongoing investigation,"
The US government then used the existence of those files 2 years later as part of the evidence for the warrant to seize all of Megaupload's servers. Megaupload was never told to delete the files, and was afraid doing so would interfere with an investigation.
The thing that makes your argument weak is that it's a quote from Kim Dotcom from an interview. I don't know, it might be true but the problem is, if it's not totally obvious already, that of course you'd expect Dotcom to defend his actions and claim innocence but he's a biased and unreliable source. The US and NZ governments, as much as they may have stretched the truth and been in the wrong in some areas, are still more credible than Kim Dotcom. As much as we would all like to go off on how corrupt and terrible and wrong the big bad government is, any reasonable person can't deny that Kim Dotcom is even less credible considering his history which includes a criminal record the long precedes MegaUpload and the fact that only the most naive and out of touch didn't know what was happening at MegaUpload.