decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Dotcom search warrants ruled illegal | 88 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Dotcom search warrants ruled illegal
Authored by: cjk fossman on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 09:01 AM EDT
Don't extradite him.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

This is the Assange argument also.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 11:39 AM EDT
Once the legal system has you they have you for good. Throw away the
Constitution.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Dotcom search warrants ruled illegal
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 03:27 PM EDT
This Not A Lawyer observes that the courts of the USA are not bound
by the laws of other countries, except to the extent there may be
strict overlap. I also observe that what overlap there may be is
usually not sufficiently precise or rigorous enough to bind a court.

There's also an old saw "possession is nine tenths of the law"
where possession may be of hard disks or an arrested person.
The CIA's behaviour is a highly visible wedge. I expect the
extradition proceedings to carry on at full speed, and Dotcom's
legal team still have a lot of work to do on the brakes and anchors.

Megaupload is destroyed, it cannot be made whole. The question is
can the innocent users who may have lost data and/or reputation
be made whole? Mr Dotcom seems to be quite capable of making
himself whole.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Seized HDD inadmissable if illegally seized
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 09:47 PM EDT
All of Dot Com's personal HDD seized by the Feds in NZed and illegally removed
to the USA were encrypted.

Presumably this NZed rulling now means that Dot Com will not be forced by the NZ
legal system to disclose his decryption keys and presumably his HDD must now be
returned.

Obviously the Feds can image the encrypted drives but they will have a hard time
viewing the data. Added is that the drives were illegally seized and potentially
any evidence discovered on them is inadmissible.

Meanwhile the legal challenge continues in the USA and the Feds case is looking
a little shaky.

Well, this sounds correct using my Hollywood movie based US legal knowledge.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )