6 ms·

Megaupload Points Out That The Feds Want To Destroy Relevant Evidence

93 points by tilt 15y ago

tptacek 15y ago
Techdirt (of course) acts like the forfeiture of MU's assets is unprecedented, but SCOTUS established more than 20 years ago that the direct proceeds from illegal enterprises can't be used to fund the legal fees of the accused: A defendant has no Sixth Amendment right to spend another person's money for services rendered by an attorney, even if those funds are the only way that that defendant will be able to retain the attorney of his choice. Such money, though in his possession, is not rightfully his. And, of course, the case against MU is far more straightforward than Techdirt implies. Stories like this (the Slashdot "Your Rights Online" stuff) are the only things from Techdirt that routinely make it to the front page of HN, but it's worth noting (and I'm not the only person to note it; I got tipped off to this by 'tzs, who went to law school) that Techdirt sucks at legal analysis.
- tedivm 15y ago
  What SCOTUS case are you referring to, and quoting from?
  - lacksconfidence 15y ago
    That would appear to be CAPLIN & DRYSDALE, CHARTERED, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES. http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/491/491.US.617.87-1729.html http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/491/491.US.617.87-1...
    - tedivm 15y ago
      Thanks, I had a feeling it would be something like this. Looking it over that case clearly doesn't apply to this situation- the defendant there plead guilty, so it was already known that the money was illegitimately earned doing criminal activities.
- mindslight 15y ago
  Legal analysis that conflicts with decisions of the supreme court and done by someone with possibly little more than a high school diploma is still valid legal analysis. Said analysis clearly isn't useful when trying to figure out the likely outcome of the modern "criminal justice" system. However, such analysis is quite relevant when talking about how far the country has diverged from the original intent of its constitution. When the Supreme Court sets precedents that conflict with a straightforward logical interpretation of the Constitution, how can anyone claim that the Constitution is at all relevant?
  - tptacek 15y ago
    It's very easy to think of cases where it would be illogical to presume the 6th Amendment shielded assets for use in legal defenses; for instance: the accused has robbed a bank of several hundred thousand dollars, and, having been apprehended, now insists the funds be transferred to the best criminal defense lawyer in the state. Nevertheless: it's been the law of the land for over 20 years that you can't run a massive criminal conspiracy and expect to have all its proceeds available to you in the ensuing criminal trial. Techdirt is clearly disinterested in learning this fact, or, worse, having learned it, Techdirt is clearly disinterested in the rageview dissipation associated with disclosing the fact to its readership. So, I call "not productive argument".
    - revelation 15y ago
      This is not a quirk of logical thinking, but of the justice system. If you want to take that money from him, establish that the money are ill gained funds. And the only way to do that is to hold a trial. Not to mention that this isn't your standard criminal conspiracy either; thousands of people including many government officials happily transferred money to his company, and he probably paid taxes, too. We don't directly proceed to executing murderers in flagrante delicto either.
      - tptacek 15y ago
        Your logic thus presumes that it's perfectly reasonable for the law to allow a bank robber to transfer the still bound packets of stolen bills to their attorney. Ok? I guess there's a reasonable case to be made there, but I don't agree with it, don't think it's unreasonable to disagree with it, and again note that it conflicts with the law of the land as established by the Supreme Court, which considered this issue directly. I think I'd have been more comfortable with a 7-0 unanimous verdict that set up a series of tests for when the government can/can't withhold assets from legal defense teams than I am with the 5-4 outcome that gives prosecutors blanket discretion to confiscate criminal proceeds. But I'd be equally uncomfortable with a 5-4 Blackmun opinion saying that the right to fund attorneys is inviolate, as that produces an incentive to double down on criminal enterprises to build warchests of legal defense funds. Generally, I want criminal conspiracies to be shut down. I think that's the reasonable-people consensus.
- jpdoctor 15y ago
  > that the direct proceeds from illegal enterprises can't be used to fund the legal fees of the accused I like how the determination that something is an illegal enterprise did not require a trial. Our gov't must save a lot of money that way.
  - tedivm 15y ago
    No, this guy quoting things is wrong. In the case he's referring to the defendant plea bargained and admitted guilt. They said he couldn't use the money, because it was an established fact (to which he himself confessed) that it was illegally gotten. Whenever you see someone quote SCOTUS without providing the case, assuming they're taking shit out of context to prove a point. This guy even altered the quote slightly to make it harder to find, but the case itself is here -http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/491/491.US.617.87-1729.html http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/491/491.US.617.87-1...
- MaysonL 15y ago
  Which is why Angelo Mozillo is broke and serving 10-20 in Federal prison for fraud. Oh, wait... Seems to me the punishment tends to fit the size of the pockets of the ox that's gored. (i.e., screw a few million consumers and investors, get a slap on the wrist, screw with the MPAA, RIAA, prepare to meet thy doom.)
billpatrianakos 15y ago
I don't quite understand something. If I'm not mistaken, defendants in an US court have the right to know what evidence will be used against them in a timely manner. It's called discovery. So if MU were to destroy the evidence now that would me both the prosecution and defendant would have no evidence, right? So I'd assume the prosecution has a copy of any evidence and that would be disclosed to MU's attorneys before the trial. So MU wouldn't hold on to the evidence but it'd be out there somewhere. Right? I feel like an idiot. I feel like I've noticed something so simple that somehow it was already explained but I'm still not getting it.
- pyre 15y ago
  Once the only evidence is in possession of the prosecutor, they are legally required to provide it all to you. On the other hand, things can often get 'lost,' 'misplaced,' or 'forgotten' that are crucial to the defense's case. I assume that MegaUpload wants access to the servers to extract the evidence themselves.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    I gather that what makes this problematic is the expense of recovering evidence from the servers, as the hosting company is owed millions of dollars for them. MU does not have millions of dollars anymore.
    - meric 15y ago
      >> MU does not have millions of dollars anymore. They do not have access to it. Whether they still have millions of dollars is as yet undecided.
- mcguire 15y ago
  I believe the point of the filing is that the defense is claiming that the prosecution is only keeping evidence that supports the prosecution.
aw3c2 15y ago
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/04/megaupload-erasing-our-servers-as-the-us-wants-would-deny-us-a-fair-trial.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/04/megaupload-e... seems like a better source
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

93 points by tilt 15y ago

Techdirt (of course) acts like the forfeiture of MU's assets is unprecedented, but SCOTUS established more than 20 years ago that the direct proceeds from illegal enterprises can't be used to fund the legal fees of the accused: A defendant has no Sixth Amendment right to spend another person's money for services rendered by an attorney, even if those funds are the only way that that defendant will be able to retain the attorney of his choice. Such money, though in his possession, is not rightfully his. And, of course, the case against MU is far more straightforward than Techdirt implies. Stories like this (the Slashdot "Your Rights Online" stuff) are the only things from Techdirt that routinely make it to the front page of HN, but it's worth noting (and I'm not the only person to note it; I got tipped off to this by 'tzs, who went to law school) that Techdirt sucks at legal analysis.

tedivm 15y ago
What SCOTUS case are you referring to, and quoting from?
- lacksconfidence 15y ago
  That would appear to be CAPLIN & DRYSDALE, CHARTERED, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES. http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/491/491.US.617.87-1729.html http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/491/491.US.617.87-1...
  - tedivm 15y ago
    Thanks, I had a feeling it would be something like this. Looking it over that case clearly doesn't apply to this situation- the defendant there plead guilty, so it was already known that the money was illegitimately earned doing criminal activities.
mindslight 15y ago
Legal analysis that conflicts with decisions of the supreme court and done by someone with possibly little more than a high school diploma is still valid legal analysis. Said analysis clearly isn't useful when trying to figure out the likely outcome of the modern "criminal justice" system. However, such analysis is quite relevant when talking about how far the country has diverged from the original intent of its constitution. When the Supreme Court sets precedents that conflict with a straightforward logical interpretation of the Constitution, how can anyone claim that the Constitution is at all relevant?
- tptacek 15y ago
  It's very easy to think of cases where it would be illogical to presume the 6th Amendment shielded assets for use in legal defenses; for instance: the accused has robbed a bank of several hundred thousand dollars, and, having been apprehended, now insists the funds be transferred to the best criminal defense lawyer in the state. Nevertheless: it's been the law of the land for over 20 years that you can't run a massive criminal conspiracy and expect to have all its proceeds available to you in the ensuing criminal trial. Techdirt is clearly disinterested in learning this fact, or, worse, having learned it, Techdirt is clearly disinterested in the rageview dissipation associated with disclosing the fact to its readership. So, I call "not productive argument".
  - revelation 15y ago
    This is not a quirk of logical thinking, but of the justice system. If you want to take that money from him, establish that the money are ill gained funds. And the only way to do that is to hold a trial. Not to mention that this isn't your standard criminal conspiracy either; thousands of people including many government officials happily transferred money to his company, and he probably paid taxes, too. We don't directly proceed to executing murderers in flagrante delicto either.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      Your logic thus presumes that it's perfectly reasonable for the law to allow a bank robber to transfer the still bound packets of stolen bills to their attorney. Ok? I guess there's a reasonable case to be made there, but I don't agree with it, don't think it's unreasonable to disagree with it, and again note that it conflicts with the law of the land as established by the Supreme Court, which considered this issue directly. I think I'd have been more comfortable with a 7-0 unanimous verdict that set up a series of tests for when the government can/can't withhold assets from legal defense teams than I am with the 5-4 outcome that gives prosecutors blanket discretion to confiscate criminal proceeds. But I'd be equally uncomfortable with a 5-4 Blackmun opinion saying that the right to fund attorneys is inviolate, as that produces an incentive to double down on criminal enterprises to build warchests of legal defense funds. Generally, I want criminal conspiracies to be shut down. I think that's the reasonable-people consensus.
jpdoctor 15y ago
> that the direct proceeds from illegal enterprises can't be used to fund the legal fees of the accused I like how the determination that something is an illegal enterprise did not require a trial. Our gov't must save a lot of money that way.
- tedivm 15y ago
  No, this guy quoting things is wrong. In the case he's referring to the defendant plea bargained and admitted guilt. They said he couldn't use the money, because it was an established fact (to which he himself confessed) that it was illegally gotten. Whenever you see someone quote SCOTUS without providing the case, assuming they're taking shit out of context to prove a point. This guy even altered the quote slightly to make it harder to find, but the case itself is here -http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/491/491.US.617.87-1729.html http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/491/491.US.617.87-1...
MaysonL 15y ago
Which is why Angelo Mozillo is broke and serving 10-20 in Federal prison for fraud. Oh, wait... Seems to me the punishment tends to fit the size of the pockets of the ox that's gored. (i.e., screw a few million consumers and investors, get a slap on the wrist, screw with the MPAA, RIAA, prepare to meet thy doom.)

billpatrianakos 15y ago

I don't quite understand something. If I'm not mistaken, defendants in an US court have the right to know what evidence will be used against them in a timely manner. It's called discovery. So if MU were to destroy the evidence now that would me both the prosecution and defendant would have no evidence, right? So I'd assume the prosecution has a copy of any evidence and that would be disclosed to MU's attorneys before the trial. So MU wouldn't hold on to the evidence but it'd be out there somewhere. Right? I feel like an idiot. I feel like I've noticed something so simple that somehow it was already explained but I'm still not getting it.

pyre 15y ago
Once the only evidence is in possession of the prosecutor, they are legally required to provide it all to you. On the other hand, things can often get 'lost,' 'misplaced,' or 'forgotten' that are crucial to the defense's case. I assume that MegaUpload wants access to the servers to extract the evidence themselves.
- tptacek 15y ago
  I gather that what makes this problematic is the expense of recovering evidence from the servers, as the hosting company is owed millions of dollars for them. MU does not have millions of dollars anymore.
  - meric 15y ago
    >> MU does not have millions of dollars anymore. They do not have access to it. Whether they still have millions of dollars is as yet undecided.
mcguire 15y ago
I believe the point of the filing is that the defense is claiming that the prosecution is only keeping evidence that supports the prosecution.

aw3c2 15y ago

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/04/megaupload-erasing-our-servers-as-the-us-wants-would-deny-us-a-fair-trial.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/04/megaupload-e... seems like a better source

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]