[QUOTE][B]A US judge has put a bomb under the Megaupload case by informing the FBI that a trial in the United States may never happen. The cyberlocker was never formally served with the appropriate paperwork by the US authorities, as it is impossible to serve a foreign company with criminal charges.[/B]
The US Government accuses Kim Dotcom and the rest of the “Mega Conspiracy” of running a criminal operation.
Charges in the indictment include engaging in a racketeering conspiracy, conspiring to commit copyright infringement, conspiring to commit money laundering and two substantive counts of criminal copyright infringement.
While the prosecution is hoping to have Megaupload tried in the US, breaking news suggests that this may never happen.
It turns out that the US judge handling the case has serious doubts whether it will ever go to trial due to a procedural error.
“I frankly don’t know that we are ever going to have a trial in this matter,” Judge O’Grady said as reported by the NZ Herald.
Judge O’Grady informed the FBI that Megaupload was never served with criminal charges, which is a requirement to start the trial. The origin of this problem is not merely a matter of oversight. Megaupload’s lawyer Ira Rothken says that unlike people, companies can’t be served outside US jurisdiction.
“My understanding as to why they haven’t done that is because they can’t. We don’t believe Megaupload can be served in a criminal matter because it is not located within the jurisdiction of the United States,” Rothken says.
Megaupload’s lawyer adds that he doesn’t understand why the US authorities weren’t aware of this problem before. As a result Judge O’Grady noted that Megaupload is “kind of hanging out there.”
If this issue indeed prevents Megaupload from being tried in the US, it would be a blunder of epic proportions. And it is not the first “procedural” mistake either.
Last month the New Zealand High Court declared the order used to seize Dotcom’s property “null and void” after it was discovered that the police had acted under a court order that should have never been granted.
The error dates back to January when the police applied for the order granting them permission to seize Dotcom’s property. Rather than applying for an interim restraining order, the Police Commissioner applied for a foreign restraining order instead.
The exact ramifications of the failure to serve will become apparent in the near future.
[IMG]http://torrentfreak.com/images/liberation.jpg[/IMG]
Update: Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom responds, and he’s not happy.
[/QUOTE]
Source: [url]http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-trial-may-never-happen-judge-says-120420/[/url]
Is this because that one cop signed the wrong form or something?
What exactly do they mean by 'served with criminal charges'?
I skimmed the last paragraph or two, but if I'm getting this right, they forgot to press charges? That seems a wee bit more than an 'oversight'.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;35653241]What exactly do they mean by 'served with criminal charges'?[/QUOTE]
It's more likely saying that the crime should've taken place in the United States.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;35653241]What exactly do they mean by 'served with criminal charges'?[/QUOTE]
A French waiter gave him his charges along with a choice the wines and the soup of the day.
If it doesn't go through. Doesn't this mean Megaupload can sue the FBI for damage?
basically "we can't sue you because we had no legal grounds to do what we did"
Good, I hope they never get the chance to press charges.
[QUOTE=cccritical;35653403]basically "we can't sue you because we had no legal grounds to do what we did"[/QUOTE]
More like, "we can't sue you because Officer bob signed form 234-a instead of 234-b"
[QUOTE=Mingebox;35653429]More like, "we can't sue you because Officer bob signed form 234-a instead of 234-b"[/QUOTE]
[quote]it is impossible to serve a foreign company with criminal charges.[/quote]
[quote]The origin of this problem is not merely a matter of oversight. Megaupload’s lawyer Ira Rothken says that unlike people, companies can’t be served outside US jurisdiction. “My understanding as to why they haven’t done that is because they can’t. We don’t believe Megaupload can be served in a criminal matter because it is not located within the jurisdiction of the United States,” Rothken says.[/quote]
[quote]Last month the New Zealand High Court declared the order used to seize Dotcom’s property “null and void” after it was discovered that the police had acted under a court order that should have never been granted.[/quote]
hmm
no
So what exactly is the situation right now?
whenever I hear the 'Mega Conspiracy' I can't help but laugh
Watch a countersue occur because of all the data lost, heck companies used megaupload as a place to store backup financial information
About time someone knocked the Fed down a few notches. Had they done this properly they might have had a case.
Hahaha nobody read the article except cccritical. And why are you supportive of a very obvious criminal?
so basically they jumped the gun and didn't go through the official procedure. Maybe they'l get him on jaywalking or something instead.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;35654194]Hahaha nobody read the article except cccritical. And why are you supportive of a very obvious criminal?[/QUOTE]
Because people like not paying.
Besides. I'm sure if there is a court case and MegaUpload win. They will sue for loss of revenue.
[QUOTE=Fear_Fox;35653345]If it doesn't go through. Doesn't this mean Megaupload can sue the FBI for damage?[/QUOTE]
Please this.
Defining lawsuit for the future please. Everybody get on board
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;35653241]What exactly do they mean by 'served with criminal charges'?[/QUOTE]
Megaupload / the guy running it (the name escapes me at the moment) hasn't been charged with a crime in the US.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;35653216]Is this because that one cop signed the wrong form or something?[/QUOTE]
In America, that wouldn't stop the trial.
At least under search warrants it doesn't. If the DA gives the wrong address, police go and inspect the wrong house and find, say drugs, they have the full right to arrest them even if it seemed like an illegal search.
I think the same rule applies to other documents dealing with the police.
Didn't they disassemble and destroy the servers, though?
That's uh, more than a mere oversight. That's straight out of their jurisdiction. I always thought that the US was trying to get extradition on Kim Dotcom alone though.
I think its more like "The US government commit a crime against a foreign company, and there is nothing in the law about that"
Can't they still sue Kim Dotcom though?
It doesn't matter, they've taken the whole thing down and scared the rest of the cyberlockers into shutting down. They got what they wanted and it doesn't matter if they establish a precedent or not.
It's not like they needed to wait for SOPA to storm Megaupload with armed commandos.
[QUOTE=Mr. Sun;35654427]In America, that wouldn't stop the trial.
At least under search warrants it doesn't. If the DA gives the wrong address, police go and inspect the wrong house and find, say drugs, they have the full right to arrest them even if it seemed like an illegal search.
I think the same rule applies to other documents dealing with the police.[/QUOTE]
Well, there's this:
[url=http://www.oyez.com/cases/1901-1939/1913/1913_461][i]Weeks v. United States[/i][/url]
[url=http://www.oyez.com/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_236][i]Mapp v. Ohio[/i][/url]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule]Exclusionary rule[/url]
On the other hand, there's [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good-faith_exception]the good-faith exception[/url] to the exclusionary rule.
But of course, I would imagine that the amount of cases in which this exception is argued to and affirmed by a judge is extremely slim to the point of becoming a non-issue.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;35656038]It doesn't matter, they've taken the whole thing down and scared the rest of the cyberlockers into shutting down. They got what they wanted and it doesn't matter if they establish a precedent or not.
It's not like they needed to wait for SOPA to storm Megaupload with armed commandos.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, since the fed can take down everything for months (years?) at a time as part of an investigation just to say, "oops, sorry about that. No hard feelings right?"
You can't really sue them and by then no one will use your service again anyway - you're pretty much fucked.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;35654194]Hahaha nobody read the article except cccritical. And why are you supportive of a very obvious criminal?[/QUOTE]
Really, I don't think you can call him a criminal. He just hosted a file storage website.
Yes, he knew people were using his service to illegally share files with each other. Every site that lets you upload files knows this. But even if he did make an attempt to stop it (Which there was if I can recall) it wouldn't be possible. The government just became a bunch of butthurt babies and shut him down rather than targeting the users like they should have. This poor dude was essentially a shield used by his own user base. This little occurrence we have here of him most likely getting off could just be Jesus's way of saving him for he really is innocent. Or maybe the police are just showcasing how dumb they are.
Typical American legal system, going for the saving of Hollywood's money over justice.
But then we also have those morons who pirate stuff in the first place..
But then again Hollywood is full of garbage that isn't even worth paying a dime for to begin with.
And it's not like some 9 year old downloading an mp3 of a Justin Bieber song is going to make a dangerous hole in the profits.
You know what, I don't even care anymore.
I lost alot of good, legal, and non-pirated files on that site that I'll never recover and I AM STILL ANGRY all these months after the event.
I'll never get some of those discontinued Oblivion and Fallout mods back.. Sigh
[img]http://i.imgur.com/aZoWL.gif[/img]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.