In its continuing case against Kim Dotcom, lawyers for the United States Department of Justice are proposing that Dotcom's objections to seizing his assets around the world be completely tossed aside under the doctrine of fugitive disenfranchisement. This is in spite of the fact that Kim Dotcom is not under any reasonable definition a "US Person" who reasonably could be a fugitive. A few points:

• Kim Dotcom is a permanent resident of New Zealand
• There is an extradition trial set for Kim Dotcom on June 2nd, 2015
• Until that hearing Kim Dotcom faces travel restrictions that prevent him from leaving New Zealand via commercial transportation.
• New Zealand is surrounded by water, and all photographic evidence suggests Kim Dotcom lacks the athleticism to swim to a jurisdiction other than New Zealand.
• Assets belonging to Kim Dotcom are largely frozen.

While Kim Dotcom waits for the courts in his jurisdiction to determine whether or not there are grounds to allow the United States Department of Justice to extradite him, the United States Department of Justice already wants to get his already frozen assets into their hands already. The only defense against this measure the Justice Department supposes for Kim Dotcom is to surrender himself to the FBI so that he wouldn't be a "fugitive" any more.

Never mind that Kim Dotcom was born a German citizen, and that according to his lawyer Kim Dotcom has never been to the United States. The Justice Department insists that Dotcom must go to the United States to face prosecution, because apparently United States immigration policy now boils down to bringing foreigners into the country under legal duress and adjudicating their wealth away. Or perhaps just taking their wealth away, because they would like to remain foreigners outside of the United States. Who already outside the United States would want to come in with the threat of imminent prosecution to a country that's threatening to put an upstanding citizen in jail for life because he made some music.

Even for citizens of the United States the Justice Department has a questionable history of choosing venues. Whether it is the Texas man who is facing trial in Manhattan for running a Bitcoin denominated Ponzi or the two California men facing charges for allegedly running different iterations of the Silk Road marketplace anything vaguely internet related seems to get tried in Manhattan under Preet Bharara. Never mind that if the Department of Justice wants a particular court and prosecuting attorney's office handling "Internet crime" it would be more cost effective to  build the apparatus in Kansas, Montana, or Ohio instead of the most expensive borough within the most expensive city in the country. Well, that and the matter where sloppy venue selection has bitten them in the past.