IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIAAlexandria DivisionUNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.KIM DOTCOM, et al.,Defendants))))))))
The Honorable Liam O‘Grady
Criminal No. 1:12-CR-3
REBUTTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OFMOTION OF QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP,THE ROTHKEN LAW FIRM, AND CRAIG C. REILLY, ESQ. FOR LEAVETO ENTER LIMITED AND SPECIAL APPEARANCES ON BEHALF OFMEGAUPLOAD LIMITED, KIM DOTCOM, MATHIAS ORTMANN,BRAM VAN DER KOLK & FINN BATATO AND TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT
Ira P. RothkenROTHKEN LAW FIRM3 Hamilton Landing, Suite 280Novato, CA 94949(415) 924-4250
(Counsel for Defendants Megaupload Ltd & Kim Dotcom)
Craig C. Reilly (VSB # 20942)111 Oronoco StreetAlexandria, VA 22314(703) 549-5354
(Counsel for Defendants Mathias Ortmann, Bram Van der Kolk & Finn Batato)
June 21, 2012William A. Burck Derek L. ShafferHeather H. Martin (VSB # 65694)QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &SULLIVAN LLP1299 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 825Washington, D.C. 20004(202) 538-8000Carey R. RamosRobert L. Raskopf Andrew H. SchapiroQUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &SULLIVAN LLP51 Madison Avenue, 22
nd
FloorNew York, N.Y. 10010(212) 849-7000
(Counsel for Defendants Megaupload Ltd &Kim Dotcom)
Case 1:12-cr-00003-LO Document 107 Filed 06/21/12 Page 1 of 23 PageID# 1144
- 1 -The Government has frozen all
of Defendants‘
assets based on scant evidence of directcopyright infringement and problematic theories of criminal liability for secondary infringement
—
which the Government casts as a conspiracy by Megaupload to induce millions of unknowncustomers to upload unidentified infringing material. The Government has frozen these assets,by its own admission, without serving a key defendant, the company itself. Defendants wishsimply to exercise their rights to conte
st the Government‘s actions,
without waiving jurisdictional defenses that are among their rights. Yet the Government continues to urge thisCourt not to permit the undersigned to so much as argue on behalf of Defendants.
Given that the Government‘s
opposition largely repeats (often verbatim) the samearguments earlier advanced, the undersigned endeavor not to repeat themselves here and insteadincorporate by reference prior rejoinder on behalf of Defendants Megaupload and Kim Dotcomby Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP and the Rothken Law Firm.
1
There is, however,one point on which there is now general agreement
—
namely, that
counsel‘s
motion for limitedappearance may be decided based on the pleadings. Of course, Defendants part ways with theGovernment in maintaining that the Court should grant their counsels
‘
motion for limitedappearance and then proceed to the merits of dismissal and
Farmer
relief.
As for the Government‘s request that
the June 29, 2012 hearing date be adjourned,Defendants object. This Court might use the currently scheduled date instead to hear oralarguments on
Defendants‘ substantive motions
.
The Government belatedly contests this Court‘s
setting of a hearing on June 29th,
on the ground
that ―multiple members of the prosec
ution team
1
Defendants Mathias Ortmann, Bram van der Kolk and Finn Batato are in fullagreement with the arguments counsel for Megaupload and Mr. Dotcom have made in priorpleadings. Those points, as relevant here, are incorporated by reference.
Case 1:12-cr-00003-LO Document 107 Filed 06/21/12 Page 2 of 23 PageID# 1145
- 2 -
are expected to be out of the district‖ on that date.
D.E. 104 at 2.
2
The Government made nosuch objection when the hearing date was set by the Court on May 30, 2012,
see
D.E. 97,
3
or inits June 8th response to the motion for release of property filed by Mr. Goodwin.
See
D.E. 99.Nor did the Government at any time prior to filing its instant opposition contact the undersignedto confer about scheduling issues and propose alternative hearing dates.In these circumstances, the Court has every reason to take the same stance that the HighCourt of New Zealand did this past week when it denied a similar request for postponement bythe United States (specifically of
the Government‘s
21-day deadline for producing materials andinformation in support of its allegations against Defendants), relying
upon the ―ample means‖
and staff that the United States has available to respond to such requests.
See In the Matter of App. for Jud. Review Between the U.S. and Kim Dotcom, Finn Batato, Mathias Ortmann & Bramvan der Kolk
, Res. Judg. of Winkelmann J ¶ 24 (High Ct. of New Zealand June 15, 2012)(Exhibit 1)
. Certainly the Government has ―ample means‖ to participate
at a June 29th hearing.The Government should not be permitted to forestall adjudication by seeking
postponement of the June 29th hearing, followed by ―at least two weeks to respond to anyunderlying motions‖ ―[i]n the event the Court grants any part of Defense Counsel‘s Motion toEnter Limited Appearance.‖
D.E. 104 at 2. Again, to quote the High Court of New Zealand, the
United States ―
must already have assembled what it considered relevant material before it soughtthe approval of two grand juries for the laying of the indictment and the amended indictment
.‖
Exhibit 1 ¶ 24. Now, six months later, the Government should not need additional time to
substantiate the basic premises of its prosecution, which has already laid waste to Defendants‘
2
All citations to ―D.E.‖ refer to Docket Entries in Case No. 1:12
-CR-3.
3
The June 29, 2012 hearing date was requested by interested-party Kyle Goodwin onMay 28th.
See
D.E. 92.
Case 1:12-cr-00003-LO Document 107 Filed 06/21/12 Page 3 of 23 PageID# 1146
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
