Supreme Court Won't Hear Kim Dotcom's Civil Forfeiture Case

[monkeymagick]

The Supreme Court has concluded against the hearing for Kim Dotcom's civil forfeiture case. Since the founder of Megaupload has not stepped on US soil to challenge the asset seizures, he cannot make claim to the assets the government had seized. Kim Dotcom faces criminal charges pertaining to copyright infringement from the US government, but is currently free on bail in New Zealand. The items seized included various bank accounts, his mansion, and other luxury goods.

"Kim Dotcom has never been to the United States, is presumed innocent, and is lawfully opposing extradition under the United States-New Zealand Treaty--yet the United States by merely labeling him as a fugitive gets a judgement to take all of his assets with no due process," Rothken said.

"The New Zealand and Hong Kong courts, who have authority over the assets, will now need to weigh in on this issue and we are cautiously optimistic that they will take a dim view of the Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine and oppose US efforts to seize such assets."

 

[Revdarian]

The Kim Dotcom case is the more blatant case of The Corporations making up laws i have ever seen. There is no way i can believe that they have a proper case since they have been taking a piss on due process left and right against him. He isn't a Saint, but the level of BS that has been used against him shows you that justice is whatever the ones lobbying say it is.

 

[JSumrall]

Two words that should strike fear in any American, law abiding or not: Civil Forfeiture.

If you happen to not know what Civil Forfeiture is, or don't really know the extent to which it is abused, search YouTube for Civil Forfeiture John Oliver and prepare to fear for your assets.

 

[tgom222]

Two words that should strike fear in any American, law abiding or not: Civil Forfeiture.

+1

I'm an attorney. I understand the need and reasoning for civil forfeiture. That said, the process and oversight of its use is utter garbage. Certain cases and their abuse of civil forfeiture are the worse affront to constitutional due process since the civil rights era.

 

[JSumrall]

There are just way too many issues with civil forfeiture as a practice and process.

Take Preponderance of the evidence for example. Basically, in most states, if a cop believes there's greater than 50% chance that money being transported in a vehicle over a certain amount may have been involved with some type of drug related activity, they can seize it. There doesn't even have to be any proof, just a 50.1% chance that the cop(s) believe it is more probably than not; aka make it up and the department can buy a new margarita machine for police gatherings.

 

[Prisoner849]

I empathize with an asshole because he's being screwed by even more horrible dicks. Strange days indeed.

 

[kirbyrj]

There are just way too many issues with civil forfeiture as a practice and process.

Take Preponderance of the evidence for example. Basically, in most states, if a cop believes there's greater than 50% chance that money being transported in a vehicle over a certain amount may have been involved with some type of drug related activity, they can seize it. There doesn't even have to be any proof, just a 50.1% chance that the cop(s) believe it is more probably than not; aka make it up and the department can buy a new margarita machine for police gatherings.

That's not really true. Bulk cash will go through a canine sniff and an ion scan to prove a drug connection before it is forfeited. It may be tied up for a little while while these tests are being performed, but you'd get it back assuming no drug connection. Also, that money doesn't go to the police dept. It goes into the state or local government's general fund. But don't worry, I'll let you get back to disparaging the police with your lack of knowledge here in a second.

 

[Gigus Fire]

That's not really true. Bulk cash will go through a canine sniff and an ion scan to prove a drug connection before it is forfeited. It may be tied up for a little while while these tests are being performed, but you'd get it back assuming no drug connection. Also, that money doesn't go to the police dept. It goes into the state or local government's general fund. But don't worry, I'll let you get back to disparaging the police with your lack of knowledge here in a second.

Kind of nutty. What does traces of drugs have anything to do with getting cash stolen from you? There are traces of drugs found on all currency in the US. Especially in the face of this: http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/26/health/atm-dirty-cash-partner/index.html

 

[dvsman]

Let's play devil's advocate here for a second. Let's say I sell a car or XYZ for cash. The person pays and I give them the bill of sale / title / whatever. I don't know where the cash came from or whether it's touched any "drugs" but if I get stopped by the cops and they say I look "suspicious" - which last time I checked, looking suspicious isn't illegal - and a police dog sniffs it and says drugs ... well that confluence of events just nailed someone who didn't do anything wrong. I don't know anything about ion scans but that sounds expensive for a department to have and to use, so I don't think that's something every jurisdiction has access to and or is willing to use in every case.

I'd wager these accidents happens more times than you think.

I'm not a drug dealer or participate in any illegal activities but occasionally I do like to carry around large sums of cash for certain transactions (buy antiques, car / computer stuff, vacation / travel), never know when plastic will not be accepted or simply stop working - whether at that particular spot or in the general area (see the recent hurricane hit areas).

I'm a strong supporter of my local police department - but my suburb is very small town in character including the cops - but I know that not all police are like that. Plus, given how the law previously incentivized seizures (departments got to keep a cut of the seizure), only pushed cops to do it even more.

Due process is there for a reason and we can't let it slide just because we don't like the people it's happening too.

It's the same reason I support both sides of the 1st Amendment. I don't like what some people have to say (including the flag burners) but I defend their right to say it.

 

[kirbyrj]

Kind of nutty. What does traces of drugs have anything to do with getting cash stolen from you? There are traces of drugs found on all currency in the US. Especially in the face of this: http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/26/health/atm-dirty-cash-partner/index.html

There's a qualitative difference between minute traces of drugs and money used in drug transactions.

 

[Gigus Fire]

There's a qualitative difference between minute traces of drugs and money used in drug transactions.

What if the money changed hands 4-5 times before i got my hands on it? Cash got deposited in a bank, the bank put it in a ATM and reissued it without checking. Now the onus is on me to prove my money isn't related to drugs?
There's a lot of assumptions made when testing money to prove guilt that really doesn't line up.

 

[dvsman]

I don't like Kim Dot Com / barely know who the guy is, but this case looks like the fix is in and definitely smells fishy.

Let's grab all his cash before he's even gone to court and lost / proven guilty.

 

[kirbyrj]

Let's play devil's advocate here for a second. Let's say I sell a car or XYZ for cash. The person pays and I give them the bill of sale / title / whatever. I don't know where the cash came from or whether it's touched any "drugs" but if I get stopped by the cops and they say I look "suspicious" - which last time I checked, looking suspicious isn't illegal - and a police dog sniffs it and says drugs ... well that confluence of events just nailed someone who didn't do anything wrong. I don't know anything about ion scans but that sounds expensive for a department to have and to use, so I don't think that's something every jurisdiction has access to and or is willing to use in every case.

I'd wager these accidents happens more times than you think.

I'm not a drug dealer or participate in any illegal activities but occasionally I do like to carry around large sums of cash for certain transactions (buy antiques, car / computer stuff, vacation / travel), never know when plastic will not be accepted or simply stop working - whether at that particular spot or in the general area (see the recent hurricane hit areas).

I'm a strong supporter of my local police department - but my suburb is very small town in character including the cops - but I know that not all police are like that. Plus, given how the law previously incentivized seizures (departments got to keep a cut of the seizure), only pushed cops to do it even more.

Due process is there for a reason and we can't let it slide just because we don't like the people it's happening too.

It's the same reason I support both sides of the 1st Amendment. I don't like what some people have to say (including the flag burners) but I defend their right to say it.

"Looking suspicious" isn't all that is entailed. If you have a truthful explanation of why you carry that cash (e.g. I just sold my 2003 Corvette to XXX person and transferred it at XXX notary), you won't be hassled. If you say things like, "I'm going to the mall to go shopping," and you have $10,000 in cash or your story changes multiple times in the course of the conversation then it's a different story.

 

[kirbyrj]

I don't like Kim Dot Com / barely know who the guy is, but this case looks like the fix is in and definitely smells fishy.

Let's grab all his cash before he's even gone to court and lost / proven guilty.

In fairness, all he has to do is come to the U.S. and face the charges against him. If he beats the charges, he would get his stuff back.

 

[Gigus Fire]

"Looking suspicious" isn't all that is entailed. If you have a truthful explanation of why you carry that cash (e.g. I just sold my 2003 Corvette to XXX person and transferred it at XXX notary), you won't be hassled. If you say things like, "I'm going to the mall to go shopping," and you have $10,000 in cash or your story changes multiple times in the course of the conversation then it's a different story.

But it's legal tender and not illegal to carry such sums of money, nor is it really cause for suspicion.

 

[kirbyrj]

But it's legal tender and not illegal to carry such sums of money, nor is it really cause for suspicion.

You're right, but I don't think you can argue that legal tender can (and sometimes is) used illegally.

Everyone here is quoting hypotheticals, but the reality is unless you're doing something illegal, the chances of you civilly forfeiting a large amount of cash is near zero.

 

[Gigus Fire]

You're right, but I don't think you can argue that legal tender can (and sometimes is) used illegally.

Everyone here is quoting hypotheticals, but the reality is unless you're doing something illegal, the chances of you civilly forfeiting a large amount of cash is near zero.

Anyone can argue that any item can be used illegally. It's a silly stance. My car is legal, but i can use it as a weapon by running over people. My house is legal, but if i use it for prostitution it could be used illegally. I'll turn it around and ask you what item in existence cannot be used in an illegal way/manner?

It moved out of hypotheticals with examples that show how awful it's being used with historic context:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/30/the-7-most-egregious-examples-of-civil-asset-forfeiture/

 

[kirbyrj]

That article cites seven examples. One of them isn't a legitimate example of civil forfeiture and one guy got his money back with attorney fees. And if those are the worst 7 examples then I don't even know why we are talking about the subject.

 

[theplaidfad]

And if those are the worst 7 examples then I don't even know why we are talking about the subject.

I'll simply point to your nice custom title "Why oh why didn't I take the BLUE pill?" and state the obvious. We're talking about it because it's a part of the reality we live in. Come back and discuss the matter when the red pill wears off.

 

[Deleted member 83233]

"Looking suspicious" isn't all that is entailed. If you have a truthful explanation of why you carry that cash (e.g. I just sold my 2003 Corvette to XXX person and transferred it at XXX notary), you won't be hassled. If you say things like, "I'm going to the mall to go shopping," and you have $10,000 in cash or your story changes multiple times in the course of the conversation then it's a different story.

I should be able to carry 10K in cash around for any reason I want. I can even INTEND to go buy something illegal with it, but unless I actually do then it's still legal for me to be carrying around.

Also, how would you know if large sums of cash used in drug transactions actually had any such substances on them more than your average $20 bill? That makes no sense. Just because someone used $20,000 in a drug transaction does not mean it actually came into contact with any of it. Let's say for a minute that it did. What if you're then carrying some of that money a few transactions later as someone above mentioned. How would you even know? Being hassled for that would be asinine.

I shouldn't have to prove that what I'm doing with my cash (I actually don't carry a lot under most circumstances by the way) is legal. It's mine. It's the job of the police to prove it if they have a suspicion. Not my job to prove my innocence. I'm not taking sides with or against the police in general, but screwy things happen when humans are involved on both sides of the law. All I'm saying is that if I'm not ACTUALLY doing something wrong, then I shouldn't have to worry. And yet, it's still somewhat worrisome.

 

[JSumrall]

That's not really true. Bulk cash will go through a canine sniff and an ion scan to prove a drug connection before it is forfeited. It may be tied up for a little while while these tests are being performed, but you'd get it back assuming no drug connection. Also, that money doesn't go to the police dept. It goes into the state or local government's general fund. But don't worry, I'll let you get back to disparaging the police with your lack of knowledge here in a second.

That's totally dependent on the state. 33 States only require 'Preponderance of the Evidence' or even less.

And once again, you grossly generalize where the money goes once it is taken. This too varies wildly by state. Virginia has almost no laws or regulations on how the money is used.

I am not disparaging the police in general. I respect them and the law that they enforce.

But, police forces are not sacrosanct. If they are doing something that is illegal or morally wrong, they deserve to be called on it and brought to justice just as any other citizen.

 

[Ranulfo]

Kirbyrj, civil asset forfeiture is big business in most states these days and people get screwed over all the time.

TN cops fighting over who gets the goodies:


The IRS can freeze your bank accounts without a warrant all on the suspicion that your transactions of or about $10k are illegal transactions given that there is a reporting law for anything over $10k.

 

[kirbyrj]

That's totally dependent on the state. 33 States only require 'Preponderance of the Evidence' or even less.

And once again, you grossly generalize where the money goes once it is taken. This too varies wildly by state. Virginia has almost no laws or regulations on how the money is used.

I am not disparaging the police in general. I respect them and the law that they enforce.

But, police forces are not sacrosanct. If they are doing something that is illegal or morally wrong, they deserve to be called on it and brought to justice just as any other citizen.

As do those who use bulk cash to fund their illegal activities. Preponderance of the evidence is still a significant legal hurdle for law enforcement to overcome if you're not doing anything wrong.

 

[kirbyrj]

I'll simply point to your nice custom title "Why oh why didn't I take the BLUE pill?" and state the obvious. We're talking about it because it's a part of the reality we live in. Come back and discuss the matter when the red pill wears off.

My point is that if those are the most egregious examples, the chances of John Q. Public dealing with this issue are minute.

 

[viper1152012]

Sounds like a municipal court declaring imminent domain and auctioning off your belongings

 

[DPI]

The Supreme Court rules the Supreme Court rules!

 

[JSumrall]

As do those who use bulk cash to fund their illegal activities. Preponderance of the evidence is still a significant legal hurdle for law enforcement to overcome if you're not doing anything wrong.

Honestly, if you seriously still think this after watching the video above, the John Oliver video on Civil Forfeiture, or any of the abuses documented by the media that can be found simply Googling Civil Forfeiture, there's nothing here anyone can say that will make you think otherwise.

I mean, the cop above says the guy committed no criminal offense, but because he 'believed' the money was being used for illegal purposes he confiscated it. With no evidence.

 

[kirbyrj]

Honestly, if you seriously still think this after watching the video above, the John Oliver video on Civil Forfeiture, or any of the abuses documented by the media that can be found simply Googling Civil Forfeiture, there's nothing here anyone can say that will make you think otherwise.

John Oliver is an entertainer and not a legal expert. He is going to use hyperbole to entertain just like he did with his multi-level marketing video, etc. I see no problem with police/municipalities/state/local goverments dividing up legally seized money from criminals or fugitives. I can't think of anyone I know personally who has ever been the subject of a civil forfeiture. I would argue that the vast majority of people here don't either. I'd rather the police "steal" money from criminals/fugitives than raise my property taxes.

 

[Riccochet]

Honestly, if you seriously still think this after watching the video above, the John Oliver video on Civil Forfeiture, or any of the abuses documented by the media that can be found simply Googling Civil Forfeiture, there's nothing here anyone can say that will make you think otherwise.

I mean, the cop above says the guy committed no criminal offense, but because he 'believed' the money was being used for illegal purposes he confiscated it. With no evidence.

And lied on the report. Don't forget that detail.

 

[JSumrall]

John Oliver is an entertainer and not a legal expert. He is going to use hyperbole to entertain just like he did with his multi-level marketing video, etc. I see no problem with police/municipalities/state/local goverments dividing up legally seized money from criminals or fugitives. I can't think of anyone I know personally who has ever been the subject of a civil forfeiture. I would argue that the vast majority of people here don't either. I'd rather the police "steal" money from criminals/fugitives than raise my property taxes.

LOL! Really? Basically you're willing to turn your back on injustice, theft, and a complete loss of property for non criminals just as long as it doesn't cost you any money.

Wow, like I said, nothing anyone says here will make you critically think beyond your current point of view.

 

[dvsman]

The issue I have with this in addition to the fact that it is simply wrong, is this: to stand a chance of getting your stuff back, you will have to hire a lawyer. A lawyer is not free. It will cost you money to get your money back ... for doing nothing wrong at all. I can only imagine how much money Kim Dotcom's lawyers have already charged him. If you weren't rich (or a lawyer) to begin with, you would be SOL.

 

[kirbyrj]

LOL! Really? Basically you're willing to turn your back on injustice, theft, and a complete loss of property for non criminals just as long as it doesn't cost you any money.

Wow, like I said, nothing anyone says here will make you critically think beyond your current point of view.

It's not injustice or theft to seize fruits of criminal activity. You are putting words in my mouth about non criminals. The least you could do is quote me correctly.

 

[Ranulfo]

John Oliver is an entertainer and not a legal expert. He is going to use hyperbole to entertain just like he did with his multi-level marketing video, etc. I see no problem with police/municipalities/state/local goverments dividing up legally seized money from criminals or fugitives. I can't think of anyone I know personally who has ever been the subject of a civil forfeiture. I would argue that the vast majority of people here don't either. I'd rather the police "steal" money from criminals/fugitives than raise my property taxes.

Dude, I don't trust Oliver at all. I've been following this stuff for years, long before that twat put it up on his propaganda show. I have no problem with asset forfeiture if it is done legally after an actual conviction. They can take money without charging you with a crime. The cases are literally US vs $4,533.35 or TN vs $22,000. How in the hell is money just guilty for exisiting? Is the almighty dollar now sentient? This is the war on drugs gone berserk. Prove, on the side of the road with men who have guns that you're not a criminal and that your cash is not criminal. So much for innocent until proven guilty That TN cop literally says "the safest place for your money if legitimate is in a bank". Apparently this guy has never heard of 1929 or any number of other bank failures. Oh and those big banks don't get to fail and when found to be laundering billions for drug cartels get slaps on the wrist of a few millions in fines. Jail time? Hah.

 

[RayderR6]

Two words that should strike fear in any American, law abiding or not: Civil Forfeiture.

If you happen to not know what Civil Forfeiture is, or don't really know the extent to which it is abused, search YouTube for Civil Forfeiture John Oliver and prepare to fear for your assets.

Indeed, the abuse of this kind of shit is just like the dirty small town cops that seize large amounts of traveling cash, determining it is to buy drugs and therefore illegal, when there are perfectly legitimate reasons for doing so, like purchasing vehicles from private sellers. WTF is wrong with having cash in this country, rhetorical question as nothing is wrong with it, just the continued process of the elite trying to control everybody on the basis of "it's for your security and safety". The cynic in me just says these same "elite" are the ones creating all this insecurity, just to push the agenda.

 

[Bawjaws]

Indeed, the abuse of this kind of shit is just like the dirty small town cops that seize large amounts of traveling cash, determining it is to buy drugs and therefore illegal, when there are perfectly legitimate reasons for doing so, like purchasing vehicles from private sellers.

Indeed, and here's another perfectly legitimate reason for carrying a large amount of cash: because you damn well feel like it. The idea that being in possession of a certain amount of legal tender cash is sole and sufficient justification for law enforcement to take that money away from you is absolute bullshit.

 

[Jagger100]

In fairness, all he has to do is come to the U.S. and face the charges against him. If he beats the charges, he would get his stuff back.

I'm Sure he wants to spend the next 10 years in jail while he fights it out against the US gov't and they seize the rest of his assets.

When the government decends on your compound like you are Osama Bin Laden for what should be a civil suit, it's pretty obvious Big Media runs the country.