Pull the other one, DOJ
It's got bells and whistles on
(Can we have a Bastille Day like icon, please?)
DoJ to Kim Dotcom: We never asked you to retain files
Days ahead of what The Reg has been told will be an “unforgettable evening” at the Dotcom mansion to launch Kim Dotcom’s new Mega service, US authorities have refuted the brash entrepreneur’s insistence that the files he is being prosecuted for hosting were only there because Dotcom was asked to assist with other piracy …
-
Tuesday 15th January 2013 11:18 GMT Tony Paulazzo
Whom to believe
The American DoJ or a 'Personality'?
Neither. They're both utterly corrupt and bereft of any redeeming qualities.
If the action wouldn't kill many innocent and hard-working normal citizens I would wish that the Yellowstone volcano let rip and take Hollywood from this world (and also that square mile in the heart of London where British laws do not apply*).
*Also the North Korean and Chinese leaders so it would have to be a fairly specific volcanic eruption.
-
-
Tuesday 15th January 2013 14:49 GMT Rob F
Re: Whom to believe
It isn't that hard to fabricate an e-mail. You can fabricate the delivery path and the headers and even the content themselves. For that very reason, the football association only accept faxes or e-mailed scanned documents on the transfer deadline.
So unless Kim has something concrete like a signed document from them, then he's going to struggle to prove this case whether it is true or not.
-
Tuesday 15th January 2013 15:45 GMT Psyx
Re: Whom to believe
"It isn't that hard to fabricate an e-mail. "
And it's why the DoJ probably sent the requests in writing, through lawyers.
"So unless Kim has something concrete like a signed document from them, then he's going to struggle to prove this case whether it is true or not."
- Which... you'd keep in hard-copy, given that it was a legal request and would have come through lawyers.
I can't believe that people seriously took Kim shooting his mouth off without any evidence backing him up at face value, and would rather believe that the DoJ ran around and removed all documented and electronic evidence and court records that they did so, and told the Judge never to breathe a word of it.
It's basically a case of weighing the probabilities of a known criminal and loud-mouth making a fictitious statement to cloud the issue versus the likelihood of the DoJ risking their entire case being destroyed and a bunch of people facing jail by putting a massive conspiracy into action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
-
Tuesday 15th January 2013 22:01 GMT Alan Brown
Re: Whom to believe
"I can't believe that people seriously took Kim shooting his mouth off without any evidence backing him up at face value, and would rather believe that the DoJ ran around and removed all documented and electronic evidence and court records that they did so, and told the Judge never to breathe a word of it."
The funny thing is that there was a lot of simliar poo-poo-ing of DotCom's claims about John Banks and after various people had shown their colours the evidence emerged - making a lot of commentators look very silly.
He's shown a few times that he doesn't make outlandish claims about actual events without having the ace up his sleeve to back it.
That doesn't stop him being someone with an ego the size of a mid-size Jovian moon, but as has already been noted - the US DOJ has a history of going after the less sympathetic people when extending to extend their legal reach.
-
Wednesday 16th January 2013 12:12 GMT Tony Paulazzo
Re: Whom to believe
It's basically a case of weighing the probabilities of a known criminal and loud-mouth making a fictitious statement to cloud the issue versus the likelihood of the DoJ risking their entire case being destroyed and a bunch of people facing jail by putting a massive conspiracy into action.
Yea, cause that never happens!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 15th January 2013 22:57 GMT Anonymous Coward
vice versa
I read somewhere else that he was claiming that as part of cooperating with a warrant from the US they were asked not to alert the suspects in any way, which removing the files would do. So the DoJ not contacting him may well be correct as what was required was communication to remove the files, no contact means don't tamper with evidence, so by not contacting him they were effectively asking him to continue to retain the files
-
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
