Kim Dotcom vs Corzine and Modern Day Letters of Marque

A letter of Marque is a government license authorizing a person to be a pirate (a privateer). This authority defines who is a patriot and who becomes the criminal. Today Kim Dotcom (megaupload) the owner operator of an electronic self storage locker gets to have all his property sued and then confiscated worldwide without a trial! CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY WORLDWIDE WITHOUT A TRIAL OR A GUILTY VERDICT OF ANY KIND. This way his assets can be used by the security state until such time as they are proved innocent of conspiracy of illegality of any kind. Meanwhile he has not been proved guilty in any court of law anywhere. Yet the FBI can have NZ, HK, and other international authorities confiscate millions thereby leaving the burden of innocence of proof to be proven by his lawyers. Meanwhile Jon Corzine , who has a letter of Marque, gets to keep all his property even though much of it may ethically belong to customers. Other parties with Letters of Marque include the movie industry, the copyright police, the trustee and judge involved in MF Global wind down, Louis Freeh, JPM, and other state sponsored players. Property rights are now non existent, laws are by decree, and your future freedom has been put into peril from every direction possible.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• webcam
• video
• wepollock
• kim
• dotcom
• letters
• of
• marque
• jon
• corzine
• mf
• global
• law
• capitalism
• socialism
• jp
• morgan
• gold
• silver
• finance
• music
• recording
• industry
• RIAA
• ACLU
• SOPA
• economy
• crisis
• piracy

[MrFatterson]

What is the legal process that was used to seize his property, although this individual is not yet convicted of anything?

Has his property been seized temporarily? Why has his property been seized?

I really don't understand how this can happen in the free countries of the West?

Mustn't he be considered innocent until proved guilty by a court of law after the appropriate legal proceedings?

Confusing ... what happened here?

[wepollock]

@MrFattersonThere are two types of forfeiture cases, criminal and civil. Almost all forfeiture cases practiced today are civil. In civil forfeiture cases, the US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant. Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove on a "preponderance of the evidence" that it is not. The owner need not be judged guilty of any crime.

[ClearSmashDrop]

The whole MF Global debacle got me interested in my own brokerage (stock). My account agreement states that only Margin Accts are subjet to rehypothecation and that retirement accounts are not. Do you think that stock brokerages will simply do it without permission?

[wepollock]

@ClearSmashDrop Who knows how a court will deal with your assets in a bankruptcy..

[TonyUnplugged]

The General Motors bond holders should have been first in line to be paid according to existing bankruptcy law. Why aren't they suing the crooks who ignored federal law ?

[wepollock]

@TonyUnplugged Or bankruptcy law changes in front of the housing bust, or bankruptcy law changes in front of defaulting student loans, or after the fact bankruptcy changes whereby 400 brokerage customers rule a process managed by the Security dealers vs the 50000 customers who are disenfranchised commodity customers (in process now).

[wepollock]

@buddyoke Ok.. this is an actual case.. In South Carolina a man was stopped by the police for speeding and they searched him at which point they found $3,200. Because that was a large stash of cash they confiscated his car without due trial. In court, He had to prove that the money was "not guilty" by showing the court where it came from! Its not only about privacy; its about state sponsored piracy, and its also about the selective application of law and due process.

[CodenameOnyx]

@buddyoke you my friend are so ignorant that you don't know that you don't even deserve an insult. you have a nice day. Read more my friend, because you need help.

[MartinMouseBrave]

So the question is: what entity is giving out these letters of marque, and how do we discipline this entity in order to force it to alter its behavior?

[rich2rock]

Yes, we don't go into a Swiss bank and confiscate accounts because of what's in them. This is the same situation here.

[soflynnirl]

I love listening to smart people like you, very interesting.

[bullsnutsoz]

When we look behind the curtain we find the greasy hand of the Royals everwhere we look

[MrFatterson]

Just an illustration to where this inevitably leads:

Article on Techdirt: Feds Falsely Censor Popular Blog For Over A Year, Deny All Due Process, Hide All Details

Law cap. Lack of due process. Arbitrary action. From the article:

"Even worse, about the only evidence that ICE had that these songs were infringing was the word of the “VP of Anti-Piracy Legal Affairs for the RIAA,” Carlos Linares, who was simply not in a position to know if the songs were infringing or authorized."

[MrFatterson]

@wepollock

thank you for your knowledgeable response:

so it's "probable cause" vs. "preponderance of the evidence"

sounds like: "lawless" and "law cap" vs. "not free" and "subject to random action"

[happionecom]

May I suggest that people watch you tube JeepersMedia regarding cnet and all the illegal down loads and more.