Month: March 2016

Kim Dotcom Fights For “Mega Millions” in U.S. Appeals Court

megaupload-logoFollowing the 2012 raid on Megaupload and Kim Dotcom, U.S. and New Zealand authorities seized millions of dollars in cash and other property.

Claiming the assets were obtained through copyright and money laundering crimes, the U.S. government launched a separate civil action in which it asked the court to forfeit the bank accounts, cars and other seized possessions of the Megaupload defendants.

The U.S. branded Dotcom and his colleagues as “fugitives” and won their case last summer. However, Megaupload’s legal team soon appealed the verdict and defended its position in the Fourth Circuit appeals court this week.

During the hearing Megaupload Appellate Counsel Michael Elkin pointed out that it was wrong to rely on the ‘fugitive disentitlement‘ doctrine, as Dotcom and his former colleagues were merely exercising their legal right to defend themselves.

Ira Rothken, Kim Dotcom’s Lead Global Counsel, informs TorrentFreak that the District Court’s decision denied defendants’ basic rights and violated due process.

“We asked the Fourth Circuit to rule in favor of fairness, natural justice, and due process by stopping US efforts to take Kim Dotcom’s global assets for doing nothing more than lawfully opposing extradition to the United States—a country he has never been to,” Rothken says.

Rothken believes that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) wrongfully labeled the Megaupload defendants as fugitives and hopes the appeals court will undo the verdict.

“The DOJ in our view is trying to abuse the Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine by modifying it into an offensive weapon of asset forfeiture to punish those who fight extradition under lawful treaties, and a provocation for international discord.”

“Today we asked the Court of Appeals for justice,” Rothken adds.

Megaupload’s defense is not alone in this assessment having previously received support from a group of prominent legal experts.

The Cato Institute, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Institute for Justice previously submitted an independent brief in support of Megaupload, describing the assets grab as a dangerous violation of due process rights

“Stripping the claimants of their due process rights isn’t just unconstitutional, it’s dangerous. There’s a growing literature on the abuse of civil forfeiture and those abuses are directly tied to the protections given to the claimants here, as well as the ability of government officials to directly benefit from forfeitures,” they wrote.

The crux of the appeal is whether or not the District Court’s order to forfeit an estimated $67 million in assets was right. According to the Government it was, as the defendants’ due process rights were not violated.

During this week’s hearing Assistant U.S. attorney Jay Prabhu denied any wrongdoing. According to the Government, Kim Dotcom and his colleagues were properly labeled as fugitives. The U.S. feared that Dotcom would get his money back if no action was taken and filed the civil case “as a last resort“.

The case now lies in the hands of the Fourth Circuit appeals court. Their decision will be crucial for the criminal trial, but the Hong Kong and New Zealand courts also have to weigh in on the verdict, as many of the contested assets are located there.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.


Source: TorrentFreak

Google: First Amendment Doesn’t Protect MPAA’s Secrets

mpaaIn 2014 leaked documents from the Sony hack revealed that the MPAA helped Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood to revive SOPA-like censorship efforts in the United States.

In a retaliatory move Google sued the Attorney General, hoping to find out more about the secret plan. The company also demanded internal communication from the MPAA and its lawfirm Jenner & Block, as well as several movie studios.

More recently Google requested a deposition of MPAA lead counsel Steve Fabrizio, who could possibly provide additional details on the case. These type of interrogations are part of the discovery process, but the MPAA argued that this would violate its First Amendment rights.

According to the MPAA, its involvement with the Attorney General is protected by the First Amendment privilege, which protects associational activity.

However, in a response submitted to a federal court in Mississippi this week, Google strongly disagrees.

“The MPAA’s attempt to invoke the First Amendment privilege to hide its efforts to suborn a public official to attack Google is wholly disingenuous and misunderstands the nature of the privilege itself,” Google writes.

Google points out that there’s is no chilling effect on speech in this case, as the MPAA’s lobbying efforts and anti-piracy focus are already widely known. In addition, they point out that the First Amendment privilege is limited and not applicable in this case.

Instead, the search giant informs the court that the Hollywood group is merely trying to keep its lobbying efforts out of the public eye in order to avoid scrutiny or embarrassment.

“It is simply not enough for the MPAA to claim that its associational rights would be ‘chilled’ because the MPAA would prefer that its covert lobbying efforts remain secret so that it can avoid scrutiny or embarrassment,” Google writes.

“It must actually show consequences which objectively suggest an impact on, or ‘chilling’ of, the members’ associational rights,” they add.

Another crucial point raised by Google is that the First Amendment privilege doesn’t protect lobbying, something the MPAA’s anti-piracy efforts would certainly fall under.

Turning the tables, the search engine argues that it’s the MPAA who are helping the Attorney General to breach Google’s First Amendment rights.

“There is something deeply troubling in the MPAA claiming the First Amendment privilege to shield its role in lobbying Attorney General Hood to threaten Google’s First Amendment rights.

“The MPAA should not be permitted to spend years lobbying a public official to suppress the speech of a business rival and then turn around and hide behind the very rights it was trying to squelch,” Google adds.

Google therefore asks the court to deny the MPAA’s motion to quash and order Mr. Fabrizio to appear at a deposition so he can be heard.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.


Source: TorrentFreak