Kim Dotcom Demands Access To Seized Property To Defend Himself 236
redletterdave writes "On Wednesday, Kim 'Dotcom' Schmitz and his legal team visited the High Court in Auckland, New Zealand, to demand access to the data stored on his computers and hard drives that were confiscated during the police raid, and also requested a judicial review of the general legality of the search warrants police used to raid his mansion. Dotcom's lawyer, Paul Davison, argued that his client needs the data for a few reasons: To mount a 'proper defense' case, to fight possibly being extradited to the U.S., and also to show that 'excessive police action' was used during the raid. Dotcom could prove this in court because the entire raid was recorded by CCTV data, which is stored on Dotcom's confiscated computers. Even though the FBI demanded Dotcom turn over the passwords for Megaupload's encrypted data, he refuses to give up any passwords until he can regain access to his seized property."
How does it taste? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the German word for "the boner you get from too much Schadenfreude"? Speaking as an American expat living in NZ: fuck the US government and its thuggish international corporate rent-a-cop policies.
Re:How does it taste? (Score:5, Funny)
What's the German word for "the boner you get from too much Schadenfreude"?
"Schadenfrisky".
Re: (Score:2)
What's the German word for "the boner you get from too much Schadenfreude"?
"Schadenfrisky".
That's better than Google Translate's "das Boner, die Sie von zu viel Schadenfreude".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What's the German word for "the boner you get from too much Schadenfreude"?
Duh: "zebonerjugetvontoomuchSchadenfreude"
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I'd call it a Schadenfreudelatte, analog to Morgenlatte, which is the boner you have right after waking up. Since I think there's a special place in hell reserved for Kim Snitch^WSchmitz I wouldn't ever have such a thing over his case, though.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the German word for "the boner you get from too much Schadenfreude"? Speaking as an American expat living in NZ: fuck the US government and its thuggish international corporate rent-a-cop policies.
That would be "Schadenständer".
Hehe.
Re: (Score:2)
Schadenwoode?
Re:How does it taste? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Well, when you steal $600, you can just disappear. When you steal 600 million, they will find you, unless they think you're already dead." -- Hans Gruber
Re:How does it taste? (Score:5, Informative)
When you steal 600 million you can give back 100 mill as a settlement and keep the rest.
Re:How does it taste? (Score:5, Insightful)
The claim is he 'sold' advertising space based upon allowing others to copy and distribute copyrighted content, not theft involved, no armed smugglers, no gang of armed criminals and, no pirates on the high seas. A straight up civil matter that was totally abused by a twisted by a demented and distorted Barack Obama/RIAA/MPAA Department of in-Justice, flooded with lawyers fresh out of the RIAA/MPAA(who dont give a crap about justice just how much money they are going to make screwing it over for as long as they can get away with it). That sucked in another country to do it's dirty work for them, a big Hollywood show. Now comes the collapsing court case and the massive civil suit not against megaupload but against the New Zealand government. New Zealand was the sheep and the US was wearing the gumboots. It is pretty obvious the current US administration does not give a crap about justice, the law courts are just something to be abused for their financial advantage. They just write up any old crap and say the most obscene abuses of justice are now legal. Barack Obama has betrayed every principle of progressive justice.
Re:How does it taste? (Score:5, Insightful)
He's the chief executive. It's his Jutice Department. Where do you think the buck stops? As to whether I think things would be different if someone else was President - that depends on the someone else. The last half dozen or so Presidents - probably not. Certain other people I can imagine as President? You bet your life thing would be different.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether Obama acted differently from McCain, Bush, or anyone else doesn't matter. I voted for the guy and still like him enough to vote for him again. But he DID sell us out. Doesn't matter that a bunch of other people would have too.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you think anyone capable of getting themselves selected as the republican or democrat candidate and so being even likely to be president would not have done exactly the same ....?
If you don't you are sadly deluded, you have a two party system where the two parties by necessity are very similar, and on many policies are exactly the same
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt this is even on his radar, it's only on slashdot that the right to download stuff trumps every other issue in the world.
Re:No, read the indictment (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously go read the indictment, it has money laundering, it has fraudulent take down procedures, it have fictitious users. Copyright infringement was just an underlying thing, they have him banged to rights which is why he's trying for the "excessive force" side defense.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment [scribd.com]
Hahaha. Did you actually read this whole document? You really should.
It also has child pornography, terrorism propaganda, and many other neat things.
It also has things taken out of context, examples of Kim uploading his legally purchased songs to his private account on Megaupload (which is perfectly legal, but presented as if he was distributing the music by uploading 2 songs to his own account).
It has many many assumptions. Assumptions that Megaupload was a 'personal cyberlocker service', then 2 paragraphs later DoJ complains that Megaupload did not have a search function - therefore, they were up to something.
No, you really should read the document. It is not an indictment, it is a propaganda document.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Read item 24 again (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you need to read it again. Megaupload said that they can hash cp images and automatically block them from being uploaded again. They flip this claim against them for none CP files.
Read item 24 carefully.
"Members of the Conspiracy have indicated to each other that they can automatically identify and delete such materials on all of their servers by calculating MD5 hash values of known child pornography or other illicit content, searching the system for these values, and eliminating them; in fact, such files with matching hash values have been deleted from the Mega Conspiracyâ(TM)s servers. Members of the Mega Conspiracy have failed to implement a similarprogram to actually delete or terminate access to copyright infringing content."
How can you be so stupid?
I am pretty sure that it is illegal in all jurisdictions to even store child pornography. Preventing it from being uploaded is a no-brainer, since there are no cases where it could be legal.
However, it not illegal for me to upload a copy of an album that I own, to my private Megaupload account.
Why should Megaupload automatically prevent me from uploading a backup of a song (or album) that I legally purchased, and which shares MD5 hash with the exact same copy which someone else uploaded and shared with others?
You seem to think that you are not able to make a copy of purchased song/album onto external hard disk (which is what Megaupload really is).
That is really sad.
Re:Read item 24 again (Score:4, Insightful)
I think a more valid question is why should MegaUpload be expected to prevent you from doing anything illegal? We don't require manufactures of other products to do that.
How come GM is not required to have cars verify all passengers are willing in some way to prevent kidnapping and human trafficking? How come nobody is prosecuting the guys who painted John Edward's house for not verify they were not being paid with illegally converted campaign contributions?
I think setting the precedent that service providers or manufactures are responsible for the actions of their users is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
MegaUpload sold bandwidth primarily (for premium users) and ads for the rest. They never sold anything in the way of pirated software, games, movies and music.
They are obviously not in any way more involved in piracy than the owners of the roads in areas with a peak in crime. Sure, the roads are essential to the criminals in the area, but they could do without if they really had to, just like the pirates now are using other cloud hosting now that MegaUpload isn't there.
But are they not in the position of a bank laundering money for gangsters?
They are not directly doing anything wrong themselves *, but merely aiding the gangsters by providing a service, which the gangsters could presumably get round by dealing in bags of cash if necessary.
* Assuming there were no money laundering laws.
Re:How does it taste? (Score:5, Insightful)
But are they not in the position of a bank laundering money for gangsters?
No more than Google/Youtube, hard drive makers, creators of encryption algorithms, or any other hosting/storage or ISP related businesses are.
Is the phone company liable for things like ransom/extortion demands, violent threats, or drug transactions made over their systems? Auto makers liable for transporting criminals committing crimes, illegal drug transportation, or for 14-YO Suzy illegally consuming alcohol and losing her virginity in the back seat to an 18-YO? Is the water company liable for someone drowning in their bathtub?
So, no. They are not in that position at all.
It's a ridiculous, facetious, ingenuous, illogical, and baseless bit of convoluted logic being used to end-run around established law, legal rights, protections, and legal procedures in order to step on someone doing something in another country where it's legal that powerful interests in the US don't like while simultaneously establishing and expanding the precedent for more and more-egregious end-runs around "inconvenient" laws, individual rights, and legal restrictions on government power.
But hey, let's give government more power to fix the problem of...having and abusing too much power? Hmm. Can't quite put my finger on it, but something doesn't make sense with that plan. I'll ask my Congressman.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
When you steal 600 million, you can buy the cops and politicians for 10 million, and keep the rest.
Re: (Score:2)
When you steal 600 million you can give back 100 mill as a settlement and keep the rest.
Only if they think you've lost or spent the other 500 million.
Re: (Score:2)
correction he stole nothing he facilitated the infringment of american copyrighted material from his company in hongkong and we put the presure on his home contry of new zeland so they arrested him.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no stealing when it comes to file sharing! - There's possibly copyright infringement which has nothing to do with stealing or theft.
Please look up the definition of theft. It concerns the unauthorized change of ownership of an item, i.e. the owner loses the item while the thief gains it. When you make a copy, theft can never be an issue unless the original is lost as part of the copying process. If you just make a copy without touching the original it can never be theft as the owner never loses con
Re: (Score:2)
There is no stealing when it comes to file sharing! - There's possibly copyright infringement which has nothing to do with stealing or theft.
If this criminal dick-shit made money out of infringing copyright, how is that not stealing money that should have gone to the copyright holders?
Your argument only applies to individuals downloading stuff for their own benefit, as it is unproveable whether or not they would have bought it instead.
Re: (Score:2)
it's too bad copyright infringement isn't enough for extradition, so they had to play a bullshit conspiracy card.
even then they failed to adhere to the process, because the process might have caught the bullshit card.
Re: (Score:2)
The plain fact is that he made a shit load of money off the backs of other people's work, and I hope he has all his assets seized and serves twenty years in prison like any other fraudster or gangster would.
Re: (Score:3)
No, there's no question. Hans Gruber definitely stole the money, there were guns and everything.
Re:How does it taste? (Score:5, Funny)
And therefore, we shouldn't complain about it when people with guns and money come after people who upset them? After all, if you upset them, you deserve it. They have more guns and money than you do, therefore they are right, and you are wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Either you really do have the morality of a particularly sociopathic cockroach, or you're shilling for the mafia.
Re: (Score:2)
One does not need to be a roach in order to understand the actions of roaches.
Re: (Score:2)
And by those who don't equate practical authority with moral authority!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's how things work. If you have an issue with that, take it up with the guy who created the universe..
Or accumulate more guns and money
Re:How does it taste? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Kim Dotcom is an innocent angel, right? When you upset people with guns and money, they will come after you. Its not uniquely American in any way.
America is supposed to be unique in being a country where that is not how things work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Unique" - are you serious? Sorry, but the amount of nationalist conceit in that statement makes me want to barf.
Re:How does it taste? (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>Because Kim Dotcom is an innocent angel, right?
As a matter of fact YES he is innocent in the eyes of the law. It is now the job of the government to demonstrate why he is not inocent (which the judge overseeing the case says is unlikely, because they did not have authority to seize the items).
Re: (Score:2)
Kim Dotcom has been found guilty of insider trading and embezzlement in the past.
So no, he is not an innocent angel.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That has nothing to do with this. As in, it doesn't prove he's guilty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Kim Dotcom has been found guilty of insider trading and embezzlement in the past.
So no, he is not an innocent angel.
What does it have to do with anything?
Re:How does it taste? - almost (Score:2)
Almost, or essentially right. I'd phrase it a bit differently though.
Actually, innocent is not the same as not guilty [oregoncrim...torney.com]. He is not proven guilty of these particular charges (yet) in a court of law yet. It is the job of the prosecutor to prove him guilty of these part
Re: (Score:2)
As a matter of fact YES he is innocent in the eyes of the law.
But that wasn't the GPs question. Kim is a sleazy con-man who has fucked over pretty much everyone who has ever been involved with him. He has a dozen reasons for no longer living in his native country (mine), all of which are morally questionable and most are related to illegal activities.
To me, as someone who hasn't learnt that name when Megaupload was busted, this sounds a lot more like Al Capone or justice finally having caught up with him. Yeah, maybe they nail him on tax evasion / copyright infringeme
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, maybe they nail him on tax evasion / copyright infringement, but everyone who knows anything about Kim knows that he deserves everything he's getting and then some.
What he deserves is not at issue. What is legal and correct procedure is; as if the current legal frame works is even justifiable. Tax evasion aside, copyright infringement should be an entirely civil matter. It should be incumbent upon content owner to detect an sue violators.
Its not the job the FBI/CIA/State Department to track copyright violators. My tax dollars are being wrongfully converted in my opinion to support someone else's business. In fact actions like this are not helpful where the percep
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How does it taste? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You missing something here?
He's not American, he doesn't live in America, American laws don't directly apply to him, He's about to be extradited for a case based half on speculation and half on accusation and assumption that a data provider is somehow responsible for the content of the users (which, either in the US OR NZ is NOT THE CASE), he's had his doors kicked in, had it all recorded on video, and then effectively been denied access to the evidence that will be used against him in a criminal court for
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
True. But outside of America the people with guns hat come after you because they are upset are called the criminals. In America they are called the police.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Wikipedia:
"In January 2002, Dotcom was arrested in Bangkok, Thailand, deported to Germany, and subsequently sentenced to a probationary sentence of one year and eight months, and a €100,000 fine, the largest insider-trading case in Germany at the time.[30] Dotcom also pleaded guilty to embezzlement in November 2003 and received a two-year probation sentence"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Nope. Before:
"In 1998, Dotcom was convicted of computer fraud and handling stolen goods, and sentenced to two years of prison on probation.[20] According to a report by News & Record, he had traded stolen calling card numbers he bought from hackers in the United States.[21] "
He still likes easy money...
Re:How does it taste? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, okay. He's making easy money in a legal grey area. Just like loads of bankers and businessmen have done in the United States and all over the world.
His only "crime" is not "contributing" to the war chests of politicians.
Re: (Score:3)
No, his crime was evading justice for a decade of con-jobs and borderline psychopathic behaviour. He's not a native New Zealander, did you know that? Do you know why he's no longer in Germany? Might be because everyone in the tech scene here despises him.
Justice hates it when known crooks keep running around because they manage to keep away from the stuff you can prove. Then, when they finally find something to nail you with, they come after you with vengeance. Sure, on paper the legal system works differen
Re: (Score:2)
If Martha Stewart was a psychopath.
Re: (Score:2)
... if?
Re: (Score:2)
If Martha Stewart was a psychopath.
Have you seen her show? She has got to be...
Another key disclosure case (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You can always use the Ronald Reagan defense: "I don't recall"
Re: (Score:2)
My personal favorite to come out of the Iran-Contra affair, Reagan's address in 1987: "A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not."
What the fuck does that even mean? Reagan was such a corporate shill, although to be fair, one could argue that he was a corporate shill long before he got active in politics.
Re: (Score:2)
"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not."
What the fuck does that even mean?
Probably about the same thing Obama would mean about Fast and Furious if he were ever to testify about his knowledge and involvement in the criminally-negligent-at-best actions taken by the DoJ in that investigation at some (improbable, unlikely) future official hearing into it that would actually subpoena him to testify. See also: Eric J. Holder.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it whenever someone criticizes Reagan or Bush (or any Republican for that matter) there is always someone at the ready to through Obama into the conversation? What the fuck does Fast and Furious or Obama have to do with Reagan, which was what I was directly responding to?
Is it to even the score or something? And if so, who the fuck is keeping score? Why does criticism of a Republican intimate support of a Democrat to so many people? It's not fucking binary; there are more than two states of being
just missing an EMP (Score:2)
Hypocritical much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hypocritical much? (Score:5, Funny)
As a New Zealander I'd like to send a message to the USA Government, "please get the fuck off my front lawn!".
Re:Hypocritical much? (Score:5, Informative)
Usually people making copies for criminal investigations have immunity from that sort of copyright claim.
In US law it's worded like this:
Law Enforcement, Intelligence, and Other Government Activities. â" This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, information security, or intelligence activity of an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State. For purposes of this subsection, the term âoeinformation securityâ means activities carried out in order to identify and address the vulnerabilities of a government computer, computer system, or computer network.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Hypocritical much? (Score:5, Informative)
"High Court chief judge Helen Winkelmann has told the Attorney-General's lawyer, Mike Ruffin, he has until Monday to explain why FBI agents were allowed to take 135 cloned computer and data storage devices to the United States."
that's from an article dated 24th of may(today). it seems indeed the action wasn't legal.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In this case, they physically STOLE his data because his company made it easy for other people to INFRINGE on copyrights. This might be the first time that anybody has ever been able to correctly use the words "steal" and "theft" in talking about a copyright case.
Re: (Score:3)
Looking for sanity in all the wrong places my friend.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly the government also kills innocent people, not just criminals. Typically it happens after knocking-open the door, and shooting the pet dog, or a little boy, or a daughter, or an Iraq veteran, or a grandmother (all documented cases published in the news). Then they call this an "accident" instead of what it really is: Murder.
Re:Hypocritical much? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sadly, you are very correct.
Back in Dallas, in the 90's, I personally knew people that had their door kicked in by the "Drug Task Force", teargas thrown, and the husband was thrown out of his wheelchair, which was then roughly dismantled/broken in front of him while they "searched it for weapons". What were they guilty of? Living at the house when the police went to the WRONG ADDRESS. A similar incident resulted in a newborn baby's lungs being permanently scarred by tear gas.
The police started curbing their actions when they started getting shot going into houses that were supposed to be easy pickings. The drug dealers had started buying "look-alike" uniforms via mail-order, and pulling raids on rival dealers using the same tactics of the police. When someone steals a dealers drugs and money, the dealer is still on the hook to his supplier. When they heard, "Dallas PD! Open up!" all they could think of was "Those bastards are back! Eat hot lead!"
The lesson here? Poor, honest, people can't afford lawyers to sue city hall to behave correctly, but drug dealers willing to kill a cop will make them watch themselves very carefully.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
NZ Police has handed them over already (Score:5, Insightful)
It was on the local news last night. The FBI are confirmed to now have a copy of the personal HDDs.
It's causing a bit of a stink as it looks like the Police have done it illegally given they had previously agreed to return them first.
Re:NZ Police has handed them over already (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
All the NZ police need to do to get out of hot water and keep from providing evidence of the crime they allegedly committed, is say they don't know how the FBI got the data.
The FBI must have broken into their data store.
Which means we have no reason to suspect any of the evidence is authentic.
Which means there is no evidence, either for Dotcom's defense or to prosecute him.
I
Dotcom should be freed even if ... (Score:5, Interesting)
... he's guilty as hell of violating US law. Writing as a non-American living outside US territory who has never set foot inside US territory, I hope that Kim Dotcom succeeds in stopping the US extradition request. Extradition should be reserved for those who committed crimes in the country that is requesting extradition or for war criminals. A case might be made for "hackers" (security breakers) that plant malware that destroys another country's computer systems, but not for people whose crime involves not destruction but the "creation" of more data.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying if Mr X living outside the US hires someone to commit a crime in the US, he shouldn't be extraditable to the US?
Re:Dotcom should be freed even if ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, why not?
George Bush hired people to commit crimes in Iraq and the USA still haven't extradited him to face justice from his victims. Or is extradition something that should only happen to non-US citizens?
Re:Dotcom should be freed even if ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, you lose. Thanks for playing. You forgot about something fairly important: a standing declaration of war
..you mean the standing declaration of war against the world(terrorism)? thanks for playing, but that doesn't count. and fyi obama too should be extradited to cuba(or rather hague, if he insists it's war crimes and not just kidnapping people to cuban soil to circumvent usa laws). too bad the government hardly ever practices what it preaches.
Re: (Score:3)
He should not be extraditable if the crimes are petty or if what Mr X did is legal in his country.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, no. [1] Physical presence of the perpetrator should not be required -- if the crime causes damage in that country, then that's real presence. [2] Why war criminals? Don't forget they're _accused_ war criminals for starters, and wtf not have the country hosting them deal with them? If they're willing to extradite, then they're friendly to the accused, so can get on with themselves. [3] Creation of data, or anything else, can wipe out jobs -- real damage. Loss of food, health care, infrastructure, homes
Re:Dotcom should be freed even if ... (Score:4, Insightful)
[1] Physical presence of the perpetrator should not be required -- if the crime causes damage in that country, then that's real presence.
Copied files! Oh, the horror! That's almost as bad as a kid selling lemonade without a permit!
Re:Dotcom should be freed even if ... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I just honestly don't see this as anything more than a petty matter. Copyright infringement. So what? People are treating it as if it's some sort of national security emergency that we must extradite people in other countries for. Wow, files were copied! That's just terrible.
What a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Re: (Score:3)
Did you just try to compare dealing drugs such as cocaine and heroin to copyright infringment? Seriously?
I'll turn your own question back on you:
Are you trying to look stupid, or just REALLY good at it?
Re: (Score:2)
What he was doing was running a 'lemonade stand' that just happened to not give a fuck if you were trading coke, heroin and any pill you could find in plain site and in fact built its entire existence on the fact that it was used for those purposes.
Because facilitating copyright infringement is totally equivalent to pushing drugs! Boy, I sure do love this brave new world...
Steve Jackson Games all over again (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the principles to come out of the Steve Jackson Games case [sjgames.com] is that the accused can't be deprived of their computer equipment and data. Law enforcement may only make copies of data.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
*If you can afford to lawyer up and get your shit back. Otherwise they'll gladly keep it until you drag them to court.
Re:Steve Jackson Games all over again (Score:4, Insightful)
The previous post is missing a disclaimer:
Today, in the United Fascist States of America (UFSA for short, spread it around!), you're more likely to be branded a cyberterrorist, and then you'll be in a world of shit: You won't get any due process, because you are, after all, a terrorist. Hell, if you're overseas, President Obama might just authorize your assassination, because obviously the US Constitution doesn't apply in foreign lands, right?
Regards,
dj
P.S. I had an account on the Illuminati BBS when it was seized (had to call long distance from NY to get to it), and I was shocked, appalled and angered when I learned of the raid.
Although it worked out in the end, and Steve Jackson Games won, doing so was an enormous hardship for the company at the time. It was, in addition to the fact that they make great games, another reason that I bought as many of their games as I could at the time, and continue to do so to this day.
Re: (Score:2)
That was in the U.S., and didn't involve uncracked encrypted systems.
This situation sucks. (Score:2)
There's no one worth rooting for here. Governments FAR overstepping their bounds primarily at the will of big business or a money laundering scumbag? Who do you root for here? This isn't even just a matter of the lesser of two evils - it's just a matter of size. IMO, this looks more like clan warfare, but instead of spears and AK-47s, they use money and men in suits.
He's still here? (Score:2)
I don't think those Kiwi police know what they're doing.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect he would likely have used MegaUpload servers to hold his personal off-site backups. Why pay someone else when you have the resources?
Re: (Score:2)
I believe we now know the answer to your question, assuming you will allow me to treat it as non rhetorical.
Re:would someone beam this guy out of my country (Score:4, Interesting)
Er, he did not (well he definitely does not have to) bribe his way into NZ. NZ like most other countries, has investors visa. He only had to invest 1 million USD, which is not much at all (his mansion it worth much much more). Well, he did pay taxes in NZ, and NZ govt better bear the costs of taking him to court. I would not be surprised if he paid more as taxes in NZ, than the govt ever had to spend on him. The SWAT team, and the helicopters to raid his mansion, must have cost a pretty penny I admit, but it was unnecessary, and its the NZ govt that has to blamed for this expenditure.
Re: (Score:2)