First of all, please use the ‘Reply to this’ function, it makes conversations a lot easier to keep track. One commentor who doesn’t know how to use that feature is bad enough, we don’t need more.

Starting from the top then…

I do not recall any such orders having been issued. The NZ courts did discuss the propriety of the NZ authorities turning over some info to the US authorities, but that discussion did not relate to any actions undertaken by the US authorities.

So I can only guess that even after directing me to it, you yourself didn’t read the press summary regarding the ruling, that or you somehow missed the following:

‘A direction by the Solicitor-General that any items seized were to remain in the custody and control of the Commissioner of Police until further direction, did not prevent the earlier removal of a number of cloned hard drives to the United States (an issue in additional proceedings not presently before the Court).’

So either the official summary regarding the case is wrong, and there was nothing stopping the US from making off with cloned HD’s of what was taken, or you are, when you claim that there was no reason the US couldn’t do so.

Which would you prefer?

No evidence to my knowledge has been destroyed by US authorities. The company on whose servers MU files were hosted wanted to scrub the servers now that they were no longer being paid rent for their use so that they could be used for other purposes by paying customers, but that was a private company and not US authorities.

Try the servers that contained MU data, the very same servers that the DOJ rooted through for their evidence, before saying that there was nothing wrong with those servers being wiped. Only allowing one side access to the evidence is not even close to just or fair.

IOW, you are upset that one charged with racketeering was unable to continue engaging in such activities until a trial was held and guilt adjudged, even though a trial was a long way into the future since the person charged fled to NZ, refused to waive extradition, and has been fighting a thus far losing battle to avoid extradition to the US.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

I don’t care what he was accused of, it still doesn’t justify destroying his business before he even stepped one foot into a court. The DOJ seized the servers, copied what data they wanted from them, and then refused to allow Dotcom to buy them or pay for their maintenance, all but guaranteeing that the servers, and therefor the business that required them, would be destroyed no matter how the theoretical case eventually ruled.

That’s punishment before trial, no two ways about it.

As for ‘fled to NZ’, he lives there, he didn’t ‘flee’ anything.

‘Refused to waive extradition’ was covered above, he actually did offer to do so if the DOJ guaranteed a fair trial. They refused, making it abundantly clear that they have no interest in giving him a fair trial.

Also, I’ve seen that argument thrown out numerous times, as though refusing to just willingly put his head into the noose is some indication of ‘guilt’, when really all it is is proof that his brain is working.

He would have to be incredibly stupid to put himself at the ‘mercy’ of a government agency that doesn’t care how many laws it has to bend or break as long as they ‘Take down The Mega Conspiracy!'(seriously, that line never gets old, and I still can’t believe they use it to describe MU in legal documents).

‘Thus far losing battle’, yeah, that’s why he’s still in NZ right? As the DOJ does everything they possibly can to con the judges there into buying that they have no need to prove they have any sort of valid case against Dotcom, despite that being a requirement for extradition. Nope, just ‘hand him over, we promise he’ll get a fair trial’.

I do not recall the details because this issue involves a very technical point of law, but there was as I recall a question state law relating to service of process, and it was argued by the US authorities that service was proper under VA law given that MU never established an office in the state as I believe state law required it to do. IOW, alternate means were available for effectuating service and US authorities availed themselves of one such means. How this can even remotely be viewed as perjury eludes me.

I linked to the article in question above, but here it is again, along with the relevant part from the legal filing discussed in that article:

‘The Government’s letter is directly relevant to the Court’s consideration of Megaupload’s pending motion to dismiss without prejudice, as it contradicts the Government’s repeated contention that it can validly serve Megaupload—a wholly foreign entity that has never had an office in the United States—without regard for Rule 4’s mailing requirement. To the contrary, the Government explicitly acknowledges in the letter that it has a “duty” under the current Rule to mail a copy of the summons to a corporate defendant’s last known address within the district or to its principal place of business elsewhere in the United States. (See Exhibit 1 at 2.) Moreover, by seeking to have the mailing requirement eliminated, the Government implicitly admits it cannot validly serve Megaupload consistent with Rule 4 as currently written.‘

So the government claimed, multiple times, that they could validly serve MU, despite the law saying otherwise. They even admit, in a roundabout fashion, that they know their claims are untrue, by attempting to have the part of the law that’s getting in the way of their actions removed.

I don’t know about you, but if someone claimed that their actions were legal, and then afterwards tried to get the law changed to make their actions legal, that certainly sounds like a lie to me, an admission that they knew, despite their claims to the contrary, that what they were doing was not in fact legal.

As for the last substantive point, it is noteworthy that the warrant has not been voided by a court (perhaps if KD ever shows up in a US court it will be challenged during pre-trial proceedings).

As I noted above, their defense of the warrant doesn’t seem that reasonable, as they are essentially revoking or re-writing the law with regards to what it takes to get a warrant.

He will get his day in court and a fair trial, but his actions to date clearly reflect that he has no desire to ever see the inside of a US courtroom, and is leaving no stone unturned fighting extradition from NZ to the US.

Yeah, how dare he refuse to bow to the demands of the US, the nerve of the guy! /s

In his shoes, I wouldn’t care to be extradited either. The DOJ has taken evidence out of the country contrary to NZ orders, had the NZ spy agency illegally spy on him, conducted a massive raid on his house as though he was some drug kingpin with dozens of armed guards, destroyed his business before the trial, refused to provide any evidence to the NZ courts showing that the DOJ has even a sliver of a case against him, despite the fact that doing so could have resulted in him being extradited years ago(if they actually had any evidence), mislead a judge by presenting bogus evidence in order to get a warrant to seize the MU servers…

I could go on I’m sure, but the point is, everything the DOJ has done to date absolutely screams that he would not get a fair trial, so of course he’s less than eager to be dragged to the US to face whatever mockery of ‘justice’ they can throw together for him.