US Govt. Objects To Megaupload Hiring Top Law Firm

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I hate to say it but I think the U.S. government has a valid point here.

Last week it was revealed that Megaupload had retained the services of Andrew Schapiro, the lawyer who led YouTube to a summary judgment in its copyright trial against Viacom. But now the US government has filed papers objecting to Schapiro’s law firm working on Megaupload’s defense, citing conflicts of interest involving Google, YouTube, Disney, Fox and other movie, TV show and software companies.
Click to expand...
 
As pointed out by some people in comments - on same basis they would need to exclude 3/4 of the prosecution too.
 
If Shapiro no longer represents those clients, what's the problem?
 
This is getting too bizarre.

1st the Government wants to go in and cherry pick through the servers and then down all of them without letting M.U. get assets unfrozen to keep them going for evidence for their defense.

Now the Government doesn't want M.U. to hire a well seasoned law firm with chops in this area of law.

This doesn't pass the sniff test.
 
You think that the Government has a point? What the fuck, who's side are you on Steve? Fuck, can I cherry pick the lawyers of whom I am trying to prosecute? :rolleyes:

Anyone who agrees with the US Govt here is a fucking moron.
 
Cyraxx said:
You think that the Government has a point? What the fuck, who's side are you on Steve? Fuck, can I cherry pick the lawyers of whom I am trying to prosecute? :rolleyes:

Anyone who agrees with the US Govt here is a fucking moron.
Click to expand...

LOL! at the 12 year old "fuckity,fuck,fuck, fuck!" response. Are you going to be okay?




(banned)
 
Just plain odd, "We don't want them to use that lawyer' cuz it's not in their best interests, but we still want to send them to jail."
 
This situation reeks of the government overstepping their bounds. I'm certain that the megaupload people will get their asses sued to oblivion and probably do some tink in the clink. However, before that happens they are entitled to have an adequate defense. Do the prosecutors expect that megaupload will just have some public defender handling their case? The government kind of tipped their hand by making this public, because now megaupload knows that the prosecutors are afraid of the lawyers who defended youtube. This farce will probably go on for more than a year, but as I said earlier, kim what's his face should start lubing up his bunghole.
 
weebling1 said:
Just plain odd, "We don't want them to use that lawyer' cuz it's not in their best interests, but we still want to send them to jail."
Click to expand...

Not really what the Gov't is saying. They are motioning because the LAWYERS have a conflict of interest, not Megaupload. It would be unfounded if the clients the U.S. is referring to no longer have open cases. Unfortunately for Megaupload, (and as the article states) there is some evidence that a real conflict may occurr, given that an appellate court has struck down the summary judgement in Google v. ViaCom.

Now, the defense may be able to show that, it doesn't matter who they choose, the gov't will find a way to prevent them from presenting an adequate defense, which is a constitutional violation. It will be interesting to find out.

Cheers,
 
weebling1 said:
Just plain odd, "We don't want them to use that lawyer' cuz it's not in their best interests, but we still want to send them to jail."
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you are trying to throw the book at somebody why would you throw a fit about them hiring a lawyer you think is going to sail them down the river? Seems like a flimsy excuse to get rid of a law firm experienced in copyright. First they tell a 3rd party to destroy evidence that Megaupload says can prove innocence, now they say 'No, Megaupload can't pick a lawyer that has experience in copyright law.' Let's face it - any major firm that specializes in copyright and has sizable experience going for them is going to have dealt with one of the major copyright holders out there. There's just too few major studios out there for them to have specialized in copyright and yet never dealt with one of the major studios.
 
I can understand anyone thinking there's a real conflict of interest here...but it really seems to me that if we flip it over and look at the issue backwards, then the RIAA/MPAA have an amazing conflict of interest, too, as they have sued several of the same parties, both civilly and criminally.

Does this mean the government should be disqualified from prosecuting dotcom because there is a clear and unambiguous "conflict of interest" consisting of prior government contact/prosecution of several of the parties that will also play a roll in the dotcom trial? That would be a ridiculous assertion to make because most of us think the government has the power to prosecute anybody--regardless of its past history with any actor in any case. Judges recuse themselves at times. How often do prosecutors? (Not often if at all, I believe.)

The principal witnesses for the prosecution in the dotcom case are RIAA/MPAA members who have most certainly developed a long and lengthy history of interaction with many of the same actors the government finds objectionable in the past career of the proposed dotcom defense attorney.

The fact is that this defense attorney will be representing dotcom--and nobody else--not Google nor any other party with which the attorney may have had past experience. If dotcom sees no conflict of interest which he believes would hurt him in any fashion, then why is the government reacting this way?

I think it's pretty clear that the government doesn't want to have to face this particular attorney because of the past experience that many in the RIAA/MPAA have had with this particular attorney. Unless it's true that not bringing up Schapiro's alleged conflict of interest might be grounds for dotcom's successful appeal against a guilty verdict, I can see no other reason for the government's reticence in facing Schapiro in court--other than it's fairly afraid of what Schapiro has learned in all his prior cases that might make the government's job a whole lot harder in this one.
 
Steve said:
LOL! at the 12 year old "fuckity,fuck,fuck, fuck!" response. Are you going to be okay?




(banned)
Click to expand...

Was the banning really called for? The guy's been a [H] member for 7+ years and your post was rather irksome.. Granted calling you a fucking moron (indirectly) probably wasn't the best idea but it's something he clearly feels strongly about.
 
DarkStar02 said:
Was the banning really called for? The guy's been a [H] member for 7+ years and your post was rather irksome.. Granted calling you a fucking moron (indirectly) probably wasn't the best idea but it's something he clearly feels strongly about.
Click to expand...

Haha, this is front page stuff that is public. If he can't articulate himself without sounding like a butt-hurt 12 year old, then he should be banned.

ontopic: There seems to be more to this than meets the eye. I shall keep an eye on its developments.
 
Imagine if the US government was a hockey team.

"I don't want our opponent to put those two players on the ice tonight, they're too good and we might loose!"
 
I hope that if I ever have to defend myself against a charge, the prosecution can't force me to get shitty lawyers for my defense.
 
Indeed.

Hell, there were conflict of interests on Judges, and there are times they didn't do diddly squat about it. Not to mention one of the infamous after the fact one, where a judge became an exec of the MPAA (or so I remember) and nothing happened to her. Obvious some background deals happened there.

Gov't is fucked... but it's been that way for a while now.
 
CrimsonKnight13 said:
The US gov't isn't all bad. I'm a Fed & loyal [H]er. ;)
Click to expand...
TRAP!

Cyraxx said:
You think that the Government has a point? What the fuck, who's side are you on Steve? Fuck, can I cherry pick the lawyers of whom I am trying to prosecute? :rolleyes:

Anyone who agrees with the US Govt here is a fucking moron.
Click to expand...
Don't hold back....tell us how you really feel. ((FYI - decaf's ok))

WaltC said:
Now, *this* is "conflict of Interest"...:D
Click to expand...
Cmon man, he can do what he damn well pleases. He's a tech hero - He invented the internet.

Red Squirrel said:
Imagine if the US government was a hockey team.

"I don't want our opponent to put those two players on the ice tonight, they're too good and we might loose!"
Click to expand...
THIS.
 
Red Squirrel said:
Imagine if the US government was a hockey team.

"I don't want our opponent to put those two players on the ice tonight, they're too good and we might loose!"
Click to expand...

Essentially - it's just best described as cherry picking. It's like myself murdering someone I have hated my whole life, and me getting the top of the game who has beat out many - while choosing the defense as a group of retards. Yeah - sure - anyone can probably get away with murder when your opponent is sitting there clueless.

This is no different than the Govt. holding all the logs from users/IP addresses from Megaupload and refusing to give them up. Our rights have been beaten, raped, shot, buried, then dug up for necrophiliac too.
 
i dont think they have much of a point at all. in fact, it sounds more like a violation of due process to allow the government to pick and choose who may or may not defend someone based on very tenuous links especially when the links pretty much mean that you will NEVER find a good firm with experience in the areas that you are being charged.
 
Hire Harry Korn as defense attorney. I hear she is good, at least on TV. :)
 
The more I think of this the more it baffles my mind just how far the government will go in the name of copyright. I'd like to see them go that far when it comes to real issues that actually effect us all like gas prices, hackers/viruses, economy in general etc.... sadly that's not how the government works. They only go this far for things that are in their own interests. It's sad really.
 
Red Squirrel said:
The more I think of this the more it baffles my mind just how far the government will go in the name of copyright. I'd like to see them go that far when it comes to real issues that actually effect us all like gas prices, hackers/viruses, economy in general etc.... sadly that's not how the government works. They only go this far for things that are in their own interests. It's sad really.
Click to expand...

Hah - I have to agree with this. But here's the kicker that I love. I don't care WHAT they go through. The latest in technology is always 1 step ahead. Piracy will continue.... no matter what. Unless the entire country goes communist (in which case would result in piracy offline instead of online) - you will be able to find it.

Hackers, Technologists, Crackers, Intelligence in general is something that is found 10x the size of the peanut brain of our government. Why do you think it takes people less than a day to unlock/root phones right when they come out?
 
Red Squirrel said:
The more I think of this the more it baffles my mind just how far the government will go in the name of copyright. I'd like to see them go that far when it comes to real issues that actually effect us all like gas prices, hackers/viruses, economy in general etc.... sadly that's not how the government works. They only go this far for things that are in their own interests. It's sad really.
Click to expand...
It's like NOTHING is more important.

Businesses are the ones who make money the most important thing in the world. We don't need the government doing it, too.

The government needs to use public money to benefit the public. Businesses don't need the government's help; they'll find a way on their own.
 
The lawyers have a conflict of interest, but the millions of dollars politicians get every year from Hollywood to turn the Federal government into it's own personal army is not a conflict of interest?
 
fattypants said:
It's like NOTHING is more important.

Businesses are the ones who make money the most important thing in the world. We don't need the government doing it, too.

The government needs to use public money to benefit the public. Businesses don't need the government's help; they'll find a way on their own.
Click to expand...



It's just business as usual, except now on a much larger scale. When companies are small, they may try to influence the township/city-council. When they grow in size, it might be the state government they want to influence. When they get to be as big as some are now, they want to influence ALL government.
 
Red Squirrel said:
The more I think of this the more it baffles my mind just how far the government will go in the name of copyright. I'd like to see them go that far when it comes to real issues that actually effect us all like gas prices, hackers/viruses, economy in general etc.... sadly that's not how the government works. They only go this far for things that are in their own interests. It's sad really.
Click to expand...

I wish they put this much effort into bringing the "Operation GunWalker" players to justice.
 
Red Squirrel said:
Imagine if the US government was a hockey team.

"I don't want our opponent to put those two players on the ice tonight, they're too good and we might loose!"
Click to expand...

And that is what this is all about. The gov knows full well that they will prob lose if this is allowed.

Gov wants to rig the game just like they do with everything else.
 
SilverSliver said:
The lawyers have a conflict of interest, but the millions of dollars politicians get every year from Hollywood to turn the Federal government into it's own personal army is not a conflict of interest?
Click to expand...

It's a symbiotic relationship. Hollywood gets what it wants, politicians get positive press.

Here's how it works, there is one political party in the US, the "Big Money Party". On it's left hand a Donkey puppet, on it's right hand an Elephant puppet. The left hand is raised to lead until discontent grows too dangerous, then the left hand lowers and the right hand is raised to gather the herd back in. The country wanders a bit to the left, then a bit to the right, then back again, never straying too far from, "the course". The 1% profits, the politicians keep selling America hope, and the media tells the people what they want them to hear.
 
jimmyb said:
Good to see you guys don't care about legitimate conflicts of interest.
Click to expand...

The government should not be concerned about these potential conflicts of interest. The cited clients are highly sophisticated and can object on their own if they feel that Quinn's representation is improper.
 
jimmyb said:
Good to see you guys don't care about legitimate conflicts of interest.
Click to expand...
Sure we do. It's the illegitimate ones like this that we're worried about.

It's clear that the prosecution is rigging this trial any way they can. Smear campaigns by investigators and prosecutors on nationally televised news, trying to shoot down the best attorneys, and even attempting to deny him access to his own money for bail and defense.
The whole thing smells like a miscarriage of justice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top