Kim Dotcom seizures 'null and void'
Kiwi cops got it wrong, says High Court
In an astonishing blunder, New Zealand’s Crown Law Office and its police commissioner have admitted to a ‘procedural error’ when they seized cash, cars and other property from Megaupload chief Kim Dotcom.
According to the New Zealand Herald, Justice Judith Potter of the High Court has declared the first restraining order under which the seizures were made to be “null and void” and having “no legal effect”.
The slip-up happened when the police applied for the seizure of Megaupload assets during January, and was discovered within the week, with police making a revised application on January 30. However, the approach taken by NZ Police and the Crown Law Office had denied Dotcom a chance to mount a defense, the judge said.
The blog Talkleft has noted that the mistake was made despite NZ Police boasting that a team of five from the OFCANZ (New Zealand’s organized crime agency) had worked on the case, up to and including the seizures, hand-in-hand with the FBI.
Radio New Zealand reports that during the next week, Justice Potter will hold another hearing to decide whether or not the assets should be returned. ®
Great news, don't have any time for the man but the sheer magnitude of the abuse of power by the US authorities and the folding of yet another country to their will is continuing a terrifyingly lob-sided trend.
I thought it a bit funny that the police seized all his property considering he was only being arrested for extradition and not for a criminal case in NZ. And even then, I'm sure they could only sieze property that was going to be used as evidence in a criminal case or could be proved to be from the proceeds of a crime. With extradition there is no need for property seizure since the crime would have been committed outside of NZ. But then I'm no lawyer.
"I don't quite understand how you see that as "the folding of yet another country (NZ) to their will (USA)" ? If the situation were reversed, with NZ seeking extradition from the USA, would the US then be " "the folding of yet another country (USA) to their will (NZ)" ?"
Of course not. The US would tell them it was an infringement of the citizen's rights and that they can therefore just piss off. You didn't think that treaty was a two-way street did you?