Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 31st May 2012 15:19 UTC
Legal "Megaupload is challenging the U.S. Government's possession of millions of dollars in assets it seized from the company and its operators in January. The newly-filed and eye-opening motion slams the U.S. for holding the defendants liable for alleged offenses that aren't even a crime, ignoring laws designed to offer them protection, failing to provide any detail whatsoever on alleged infringements, and pushing U.S. law far beyond its borders." I'm sure Megaupload wasn't exactly a fluffy bunny organisation, but rarely have I seen a government screw up so badly, and so publicly.
Thread beginning with comment 520217
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Rather a useless request.
by jefro on Thu 31st May 2012 20:18 UTC
jefro
Member since:
2007-04-13

The law enforcement sectors have been allowed to take any and all possessions that were in the course of a criminal act. Hunters get their rifles and trucks taken if they violate the laws. Fishermen get their boats taken. Drug dealers can get their homes and boats and jets taken. Stock market crooks get their possessions frozen. Why should this guy get his back? Asking for it all back may show that more illegal actions were being done.

Reply Score: -2

RE: Rather a useless request.
by jburnett on Thu 31st May 2012 23:47 in reply to "Rather a useless request."
jburnett Member since:
2012-03-29

The government generally files very specific charges and provides the defense with substantial evidence for poachers, drug dealers, tax evaders, and securities criminals. I think his argument is that the government has failed to allege any crime for which property may be seized before being found guilty, and that many of the alleged crimes are not, in fact, even crimes. Further, he makes the argument that the prosecution has not turned over any evidence that substantiates much of what was charged.

A better question might be why the USA, which prides itself on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, allows the government to seize property and liberty without proof of guilt.

Reply Parent Score: 8

cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Indeed. In that case it seems to be that no evidence was needed cause everybody did buy whatever the media-mafia sold them.

A prime example why strong mechanisms to protect from the government is a base principle needed to keep freedom and security.

Edited 2012-06-02 00:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1