Western Justice System Backs US & Five Eyes' Totalitarianism Serving US Corporate Agenda: US Government Legal Theft - Kim Dotcom

ꕤ Article SOURCE https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150326/18041530458/how-us-government-legally-stole-millions-kim-dotcom.shtml Western Justice System Backs US & Five Eyes' Totalitarianism / Serving US Corporate Agenda: US Government Legal Theft - Kim Dotcom  https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150326/18041530458/how-us-government-legally-stole-millions-kim-dotcom.shtml How The US Government Legally Stole Millions From Kim Dotcom by Mike Masnick  |  Fri, Mar 27th 2015 10:36am from the the-fun-of-asset-forfeiture dept About a month ago we covered the basics of the lawsuit by which the US government was seeking to keep pretty much all of Kim Dotcom's assets, despite the fact that Dotcom himself hasn't been tried -- and, in fact, it hasn't even been determined if he can be extradited to the United States (a country he's never visited). This week, that case took another step, with the judge, Liam O'Grady, who had already ruled that Kim Dotcom could be considered a "fugitive," more or less finalizing the theft of Dotcom's assets by declaring a default judgment in favor of the US. This isn't the end of the process (not by a longshot), but it highlights just how the US government can use some ridiculous procedures to steal millions in assets from someone who hasn't been shown to be guilty of anything. As we discussed last time, the story of the raid on Kim Dotcom's rented home in New Zealand, the seizure of all of his cars, money, bank accounts, computers, servers, etc. is well known. That was part of a case for which Kim Dotcom was indicted (under what appears to be questionable legal reasoning -- but that's a separate issue). As has been widely reported, that case is still on hold while Dotcom fights extradition from New Zealand. The extradition fight will finally go to a New Zealand court later this summer. Once that's done, if Dotcom loses, he'll be sent to the US, where he'll face a criminal trial based on the indictment. But this is actually separate from all of that. You see, when the US government grabbed or froze all of Dotcom's assets, they did so using an asset seizure procedure. Asset seizure is allowed in such cases, but the government then has to give that property back. What the government really wanted to do is keep all of Dotcom's tens of millions of dollars worth of assets -- and in order to do that it has to go through a separate process, known as civil asset forfeiture. It's technically a civil (not criminal) case, but (and here's the part that people find most confusing), it's not actually filed against Kim Dotcom at all, but rather against his stuff that the government already seized. Yes, it's technically an entirely separate lawsuit, that was only filed last summer (two and a half years after the government seized all of his stuff and shut down his company), entitled United States Of America v. All Assets Listed In Attachment A, And All Interest, Benefits, And Assets Traceable Thereto. And, as we noted last time, Attachment A is basically all of Kim Dotcom's stuff. This whole process is known as an "in rem" proceeding -- meaning a lawsuit "against a thing" rather than against a person. And the "case" basically says all this stuff should be "forfeited" to the US government because it's the proceeds of some criminal activity. You would think that in order for such civil asset forfeiture to go forward, you'd then have to show something like a criminal conviction proving that the assets in question were, in fact, tied to criminal activity. You'd be wrong -- as is clear from what happened in this very case. Once the Justice Department effectively filed a lawsuit against "all of Kim Dotcom's money and stuff," Dotcom did what you're supposed to do in that situation and filed a challenge to such a ridiculous situation. And here the DOJ used the fact that Dotcom was fighting extradition to argue that he was a "fugitive." Judge O'Grady agreed with that last month, and that resulted in the decision earlier this week to then declare a "default judgment" in favor of the DOJ, and giving the US government all of Kim Dotcom's stuff. A "default judgment?" As you know if you regularly read Techdirt, that's usually what happens when a defendant simply ignores a court case filed against him. As the court notes in this ruling, for that to happen in a civil asset forfeiture case, it means no one tried to block the claim:     Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 permits the court to grant a motion for default judgment when the well-pled allegations of the complaint establish plaintiff's entitlement to relief, and where a defendant has failed to plead or defend as provided by the rules.... In the civil forfeiture context, default judgment is permitted where no potential claimant has filed a response to the complaint...     A defendant in default, and a claimant who fails to assert a claim in rem, is deemed to have admitted all of the plaintiff's well-pled allegations of fact, which then form the basis for the judgment in the plaintiff's favor. But, wait, you say: Kim Dotcom did file a complaint about the asset forfeiture, so how could a default judgment happen here? That's where the whole "fugitive" bit comes in. Because Dotcom won't come to the US, he's been deemed a fugitive, and thus the Judge simply hands over all of his stuff to the US government. And thus, without any sort of criminal conviction at all, the US gets to steal millions of dollars from Dotcom. If that sounds insane, you're absolutely right. And, again, it is entirely possible that when all of this is over, Kim Dotcom will be found guilty of "criminal conspiracy." If that's the case, then at that point it's reasonable to discuss whether the government should get to keep all of his stuff. But it seems an absolute travesty of concepts like due process for the government to be able to take all of his money and stuff based on purely procedural reasons having to do with a separate criminal case that hasn't even been tried yet. The process isn't over yet. Dotcom can still appeal this ruling, though the real problem is with the civil asset forfeiture process, rather than how it was applied in this particular case. Dotcom also has other options for the assets that are in New Zealand and Hong Kong, in using the local courts in those places to try to block the transfer of those assets to the US government. Not knowing enough about the law in either place, it's difficult to say what the chances of success of such a strategy would be. Either way, this seems like a classic case demonstrating how the civil asset forfeiture process appears to be little more than legalized theft by the US government. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150326/18041530458/how-us-government-legally-stole-millions-kim-dotcom.shtml Kim Dotcom RAID https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmObwguVmEI ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Kim Dotcom Mr President https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MokNvbiRqCM ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Seizing assets also: 1)  disrupts target's business activities; and 2)  impacts on (or blocks) a target's capacity to mount a legal defence. This is legal and assets rape by US government & its Five Eyes allies. US is otherwise well known for asset rape, because US interests control key financial institutions post WWII. Capital Punishment  almost $9 billion fine BNP Paribas (France) highest-ever fine imposed on a foreign bank by US regulators for breaking American imposed sanctions ie  doing business with Cuba, Iran & Sudan "A second source of discontent—in Europe, at any rate—is that the case appears to be an example of America throwing its financial weight around, using the threat of withholding access to its market and currency to force compliance with its own priorities. The French central bank sent a clear message that, whatever the rights and wrongs of BNP’s behaviour, crippling so large a European bank could harm the world’s financial system, as well as a region struggling for growth." LINK | more (Paribas) & read between the lines To my way of thinking, the US is forcing private, foreign institutions to back US (plutocratic, corporate-bought & controlled, special interest lobby groups & US elites), driven punitive economic force / blackmail-style foreign policy, or suffer assets rape by USA controlled financial & other institutions. That's crap.  Why don't all foreign institutions just bail and do their own thing, cutting out the US money-controlling middleman?  ꕤ

US Screws BNP Paribas

BNP Paribas sentenced in $8.9 billion accord over sanctions violations Reuters  on May 2, 2015 @ 1:40 AM By Nate Raymond NEW YORK (Reuters) - BNP Paribas SA was sentenced to five years probation by a U.S. judge on Friday in connection with a record $8.9 billion settlement resolving claims that it violated sanctions against Sudan, Cuba and Iran. U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield in Manhattan formally ordered the French bank to forfeit $8.83 billion and pay a $140 million fine as part of a sentence that also called for BNP Paribas to enhance its compliance procedures and policies. Some of that money could now go to people harmed by the three sanctioned countries under a program the U.S. Justice Department announced in court. Georges Dirani, BNP's general counsel, told the judge that the bank accepted "full responsibility for its conduct," and was under CEO Jean-Laurent Bonnafé's personal supervision already improving its policies. "There's no question the organization will not tolerate the kind of behavior we have seen in this case," Dirani said. The case marked the first time a global bank pleaded guilty to violations of U.S. economic sanctions, the Justice Department said. The sentencing followed BNP Paribas' guilty plea in July to conspiring from 2004 to 2012 to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Trading with the Enemy Act. The sentence imposed by Schofield followed the terms of a heavily negotiated plea deal the Justice Department announced that month. Authorities said that BNP essentially functioned as the "central bank for the government of Sudan," concealing its tracks and failing to cooperate when first contacted by law enforcement. Prosecutors said BNP also evaded sanctions against entities in Iran and Cuba, in part by stripping information from wire transfers so they could pass through the U.S. system without raising red flags. BOMBING VICTIMS Friday's sentencing took place in a courtroom crowded with people Schofield said claimed to have been harmed by actions taken by the sanctioned countries and who were seeking restitution. While Schofield said they were not legally entitled to that relief, prosecutor Jennifer Ambuehl said the Justice Department would evaluate distributing the $3.84 billion in forfeitures it received in the deal to people harmed by Sudan, Cuba and Iran. Ambuehl called the effort "unprecedented" and said the Justice Department would shortly be launching a website to accept claims. But the program, which covers anyone harmed from 2004 to 2012, came as a disappointment to victims of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed 224 people. Several victims had flown to New York in anticipation of the program's announcement. They had cited a U.S. court's finding that without Sudan's support, al Qaeda could not have perpetrated the attacks. "We had hoped that the Department of Justice would stand with us and are deeply disappointed that it chose to delay and not do the right thing," George Mimba, the former head of the Kenya embassy employees, said in a statement. BNP's sentencing had been delayed for months while it awaited word on whether the U.S. Labor Department would allow it to continue to manage retirement plans despite the plea. The department granted BNP that exemption this month. A New York state court judge on April 15 sentenced BNP Paribas in a related case in which it agreed to forfeit $2.24 billion. That sum, along with a $508 million payment to the Federal Reserve and a $2.24 billion payment to the New York Department of Financial Services, are credited toward the $8.9 billion ordered by Schofield on Friday. The sentencing came a day after BNP Paribas reported first-quarter net income of 1.65 billion euros ($1.83 billion), up 17.5 percent. Revenue grew 11.6 percent to 11.1 billion euros. The case is U.S. v. BNP Paribas SA, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 14-cr-00460. (Editing by Ted Botha) Copyright2015 Thomson Reuters Source - here COMMENT To my way of thinking, this is US extortion. .................................................... Lorna G. Schofield Federal judicial service On April 25, 2012, President Obama nominated Schofield to serve as a United States District Judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York... Schofield is the first Filipino American in the history of the United States to serve as an Article III federal judge. ... U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on June 6, 2012 ... reported Schofield's nomination to the full U.S. Senate on July 12, 2012. The U.S. Senate confirmed Schofield on December 13, 2012 in a 91-0 vote. She received her commission on December 13, 2012. Source - here

US Senators baying for more sanctions - Nuland says "very soon"

July 9, 2014, 11:37 AM
Senators press for more sanctions on Russia


WASHINGTON -- Democratic and Republican senators exasperated with the Obama administration's response to Russia's aggression in Ukraine threatened on Wednesday to act unilaterally on new sanctions.

"What are we waiting for?" Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, asked twice at a hearing with senior administration officials from State, Treasury and the Defense departments about targeted sanctions that the administration said it was preparing last month.

Lawmakers ticked off a list of examples of Russia's pattern of escalating the nearly three month crisis and then pulling back, arguing that Russian President Vladimir Putin has made the U.S. and European allies look foolish. More than 400 people have died and thousands have fled their homes in Ukraine as fighting continues between government forces and pro-Russia separatists.
...
Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, defended the administration's policies, saying the United States is ready to impose new sanctions "very soon." She stressed that it would be more effective for the United States to work together with Europe on such steps and the U.S. continues to consult with its allies. However, she said Obama has made clear that if necessary, the U.S. would act alone.
...

FULL article CBS News - here.
-----------------------------------



COMMENT
There are sanctions in place. 
Sanctions have even been crippling French bank, BNP Paribas (so they're far reaching & punative), with fines into the billions.
It has been said that the unprecedented fines are the result of US seeking to punish France for the recent Mistral deal to Russia.


The Ukraine deaths are the result of Ukraine fraternal or civil war & the US-backed Ukraine government holds the 'big guns' (air attacks etc).

Russia has not set foot in the Ukraine, as far as poster is aware.

Assume the:

"if necessary, the U.S. would act alone",

conveyed by Nuland, would indicate the US will impose further sanctions (rather than military action) on Russia with or without EU support.

There's the beauty of wider alliances (and extra-national organisations such as EU)...there's always a swap of 'good cop' and 'bad cop' roles that's advantageous in dealings.

Poster is guessing the urgency is the coming winter in Europe.
Russia's Europe's supplier of gas.