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 …

[Falanx]

Pull the other one, DOJ

It's got bells and whistles on

(Can we have a Bastille Day like icon, please?)

[g e]

Re: Pull the other one, DOJ

Plus a vote for torches & pitchforks icon too!

A Madame Guillotine icon for Bastille day :oD

[1A]

Who would you trust kim dotcom or the doj/us gov.

us gov has started 2 illegal wars based on lies. Seizes domains without any process. I know who i trust.

[g e]

I wouldn't trust either of them

But I'd go for drinks with KD...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I wouldn't trust either of them

I suggest locking them all in a room with an open bar....

Then loose the key...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I wouldn't trust either of them

Run.....Save yourself....The key is loose!

Seriously people is it really that hard to spell LOSE? The two words have entirely different meanings and are not interchangeable.

[Psyx]

Re: I wouldn't trust either of them

"But I'd go for drinks with KD..."

I'd seriously rather go for a beer and a chat with a highly educated lawyer than I would massage Kim's ego by socialising with him.

Plus, he'd eat all the peanuts.

[DanceMan]

Re: us gov has started 2 illegal wars

Only two?

[Alan Brown]

Re: us gov has started 2 illegal wars

Or was it US media in order to sell more advertising?

After all they have a fine tradition dating back to the Spanish-American war.

[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.

[Psyx]

Re: Whom to believe

"Neither. They're both utterly corrupt and bereft of any redeeming qualities."

Yes, but one of them isn't stupid enough to make an allegation that could be disproved with a single email or print-out.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[Tom 38]

Re: Whom to believe

So the DoJ was behind Watergate? Are you sure it wasn't a bunch of dirty crook politicians?

[Kevin Fields]

Wrong but right

Kim DotCom may be a fat cocktard, but IMO he's a fat cocktard who just happens to be in the right on this particular issue. I really wish my government would stop wasting money on this, confess their sins, and wash their hands of it.

[peter 45]

Funny how

The DOJ denied any direct communications.......and completely ignores that all the communications were through a third party. Hope the Judge picks up on that and reams the DOJ lawyers sideways.

[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

[Anonymous Coward]

Reality Time

Mr. Kim is in for a reality check.

[KjetilS]

Techdirt goes deeper into detail on what exactly happened in this case here, and it does seem like the DOJ i trying to weasel themselves out of a bad position.