Illegitimate Transfer of Inalienable European Rights via Convention(s) & Supranational Bodies Establishment of Sovereignty-Usurping Supranational Body Dictatorships Enduring Program of DEMOGRAPHICS WAR on Europeans Enduring Program of PSYCHOLOGICAL WAR on Europeans Enduring Program of European Displacement, Dismemberment, Dispossession, & Dissolution
No wars or conditions abroad (& no domestic or global economic pretexts) justify government policy facilitating the invasion of ancestral European homelands, the rape of European women, the destruction of European societies, & the genocide of Europeans.
U.S. RULING OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR TO SALVAGE HEGEMONY [LINK | Article]
Who's preaching world democracy, democracy, democracy? —Who wants to make free people free?
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 ithighlights 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.
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."
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), drivenpunitive 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?
Got the worst pain -- ever. Out of nowhere. Think it's my stomach, but it's quite high up under my rib cage. Hope I'm not having a heart attack. If there's no further posts, I'm dead. LOL Novorossiya are steaming-rolling head, judging by the reports. But we'll see. Can't sit still. Sort of squirming in my seat, huffing & puffing to take the edge off whatever's wrong. Hoping couple of pain killers kick in and take the edge off this soon. Poland/Tusk is lobbying for the NATO-Ukraine incursion. Guessing Tusk is either (a) ultra conservative or (b) from the US/NGO 'sausage factory'. Same old anti Russian articles around the traps. Get ridiculously worked up about it, like I'm taking it personally or something. Too bad I don't have a chilled, sarcastic take on it like some of the Twitter dudes do -- they're so funny. Anyway, it's not like the Russians care. Rogozin, Putin and Lavrov have all been going about their business -- and working the Russian crowds. Lavrov seems to have a few fans. Take it he's a popular figure.
Getting worked up about the bad press Russia gets is rather embarrassing: nobody's worried and tomorrow's another news day. That's just how it works -- there's a 'villain' who gets a daily beat-up and Russia is that 'villain'. Anyway, there's no holding back the tidal wave of nasty, underhand poison-pen persuasion pieces from assorted lobbyists.
Someone pointed out that the propaganda's dished out in a stop-start fashion and it's true. Every so often there's a crescendo of official 'condemning' statements, combined with an avalanche of press vilification ... followed by a lull. Not sure how it works. I've only started to watch politics. Never had an interest before. Might have already mentioned, Italy's Federica Mogherini's been appointed the UN High Representative for Foreign Affairs & Policy of the Economic Union, which I'm quite pleased about. Better than Bildt and Tusk. And better looking. Unfortunately, Tusk's got himself the President of the European Council job, but in a toss up between creepy Carl Bildt or Tusk being appointed, Tusk suddenly shines. LOL Tusk/Poland and the Baltic states sound like they've joined forces to bitch about the Mogherini appointment. It was reported that they weren't pleased with her appointment because she's too 'close' and too 'soft' on Russia, or something like that. Everyone's whispering about the lack of experience, as well. But it's probably not a real job, so who cares. She's kinda hot in a milfy way, so what's the problem? And it's not like Ashton's some Wonder Woman: those nuclear talks are ongoing. The EU alliances and back-room lobbying probably matter far more than the actual positions. But that's just a guess. Speaking of Ashton, she met with the Iranian foreign minister (I think it was) for another round of EU nuclear talks. Russia's up for another round of sanctions from the US puppets and Australia's Prime Minister also joined in bleating about sanctions to be taken against Russia. What is utterly appalling is that NO SANCTIONS are to be taken against the US puppet government in Ukraine and that all these representatives of 'truth', 'justice', 'peace', 'democracy' - and other fanciful crap we're supposed to believe - meekly adopt US policy and support the shelling of civilians by the Ukraine government. Not a word of condemnation. So what does that tell you? New Zealand has its own suppression order and spy scandal, under the John Key government. Also, his Justice Minister resigned over some very unsavoury allegations. But that's not all, folks ... NZ's law prohibits spying on citizens of NZ, but that hasn't stopped the government spying -- AND they've executed illegal warrants (re Kim Dotcom raid) AND they've refused to answer questions about funding from their US equivalent, so there's obviously some murky stuff going on in NZ government and intelligence -- and it has USA and NSA fingerprints all over it. Hollywood's a player in this as well ... but I'm not entirely clear on the ins and outs of the Dotcom scandal, because I've been flitting from one thing to another that happens to take my interest. Facebook are censoring the Novorossiya supporters' posts by the look of things. I've hooked them up with a Ukraine article that appears to indicate that the Ukraine government is having social media stuff censored. Translation kind of garbled, but I think that's the gist of it -- and if that's the case, it's outrageous. But I don't know who to complain to.
"Facebook removed our post about the abominable declarations of neonazi Battalion Azov leader, Andriy Biletsky,..." >> Porkkky has done a deal w/ -- blocking social media for Ukraine government - http://www.president.gov.ua/news/31108.html
Anyway, that's some of the stuff that caught my attention. Disappointed that I don't cover more ground. No idea what's happening in France, apart from new cabinet having been formed after the economy minister bitched about not-so-socialist policy.
The Labor government in Australia has sprung to mind, but they're not socialists, although they're supposed to be the 'left'. Not sure what they are. Sound like they're just another bunch of conservatives -- or they're happy to make the sift wherever necessary (if it means gaining power). Worse, they appear to be US-Israel dominated. Check out the WikiLeaks cable regarding Julia Gillard's determined climb to the top ... over Rudd's 'dead' body, so to speak.
---------------------------------------------
PS
Geez, it's annoying pressing 'publish' and finding typos.
What's with the 'drafting blindness', I wonder? As in, why are typos easier to see once you've published?
A rather boring post, as well. Sounds like it's been written by a robot. Don't see that improving any time soon. Boring writing comes naturally. :)
If I've repeated any info, my apologies. I've not been focused on the blog, so I'm just rambling.
EU-NATO IMPERIALISM ❌ 