Indeed. The hold-up appears to be because of the wording of the statute, that they need to be notified at their US address. That could point towards either a failure on the part of the legislators, or a conscious effort on their part to keep notices from being served on entities not under US purview.
I suppose the judge could attempt to discern the intent of the law and make a ruling that goes with the spirit of the law, but it's noted in the article that the wording is fairly plain, and that doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation.
Also, I wonder how much people would be complaining about this if it was a drug cartel of some sort (with a corporate front) with seized US assets and a similar defense.
As far as I've read, Megaupload didn't have any U.S. assets. It was all in Hong Kong and Australia.
You don't see the U.S. going into foreign countries (on different continents even) and dragging back people and their assets to charge under American law, do you?
If a drug cartel is running it's operation in a country where it's not illegal to do so and something like this happened, then I would STILL be complaining about this.
I suppose the judge could attempt to discern the intent of the law and make a ruling that goes with the spirit of the law, but it's noted in the article that the wording is fairly plain, and that doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation.
Also, I wonder how much people would be complaining about this if it was a drug cartel of some sort (with a corporate front) with seized US assets and a similar defense.