Question: In what year was the owner of Megaupload in the Megaupload legal case born?

Context articles: Megaupload legal case
Legal case
Arthur v Anker
Desafuero of Manuel López Obrador
Temple Lot Case
Terri Schiavo case
Dietrich v The Queen
Kim Dotcom
Precedent
Taltarum's Case

The Megaupload legal case concerns a number of related criminal indictments and enforcement actions taken against Megaupload owner Kim Dotcom in various jurisdictions.
 On 19 January 2012 the United States Department of Justice seized and shut down the file-hosting site Megaupload.com and commenced criminal cases against its owners and others.
 On 20 January Hong Kong Customs froze more than 300 million Hong Kong dollars (US$39 million) in assets belonging to the company.
A legal case is a dispute between opposing parties resolved by a court, or by some equivalent legal process.
 A legal case may be either civil or criminal.
 In each legal case there is an accuser and one or more defendants.
Arthur & Another v Anker & Another is an English legal case that set new case law in respect of the use of wheel clamps to immobilise vehicles on private land and is regarded as the leading legal authority on the subject.
 The case established a legal precedent in relation to the use of wheel clamps and the concept of consent but some years later this was expanded upon in the case of "Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest".
The "Desafuero" of Andrés Manuel López Obrador was the removal of López Obrador's state immunity from prosecution.
 It took place during 2004 and 2005.
 This process was originated by a land owner who sued the Federal District's government on the grounds of improper expropriation of a patch of land called "El Encino".
 This case detonated in López Obrador's (AMLO) hands in 2005, when a vote by the Chamber of Deputies lifted his constitutional immunity against criminal charges.
 If officially charged, he would have lost all his civil rights, including the right to run for the presidency in 2006, unless he was either quickly acquitted of all charges or managed to serve his sentence before the electoral registration deadline.
 On April 27, 2005, President Vicente Fox announced changes in his cabinet, a re-evaluation of the legal case against AMLO and legal changes so civil rights are only suspended once a citizen is found guilty.
 Fox and López Obrador met in the first week of May 2005, as part of the efforts to calm the political climate.
 The new Attorney General found a way to avoid prosecuting López Obrador, but it depended on the approval on the private company that first sued him.
The Temple Lot Case (also known as the Temple Lot Suit and formally known as The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, complainant, v. the Church of Christ at Independence, Missouri) was a United States legal case in the 1890s which addressed legal ownership of the Temple Lot, a significant parcel of land in the Latter Day Saint movement.
 In the case, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS Church) claimed legal title of the land and asked the court to order the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) to cease its occupation of the property.
 The RLDS Church won the case at trial, but the decision was reversed on appeal.
The Terri Schiavo case was a right-to-die legal case in the United States from 1990 to 2005, involving Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo (December 3, 1963 – March 31, 2005), a woman in an irreversible persistent vegetative state.
 Schiavo's husband and legal guardian argued that Schiavo would not have wanted prolonged artificial life support without the prospect of recovery, and elected to remove her feeding tube.
 Schiavo's parents disputed her husband's assertions and challenged Schiavo's medical diagnosis, arguing in favor of continuing artificial nutrition and hydration.
 The highly publicized and prolonged series of legal challenges presented by her parents, which ultimately involved state and federal politicians up to the level of President George W. Bush, caused a seven-year delay before Schiavo's feeding tube was ultimately removed.
Dietrich v The Queen, is an important legal case, stemming from an incident that took place on 17 December 1986, that was decided in the High Court of Australia on 13 November 1992.
 It concerned the nature of the right to a fair trial, and under what circumstances indigent defendants (defendants who cannot afford legal representation) should be provided with legal aid by the state.
 The case determined that although there is no absolute right to have publicly funded counsel, in most circumstances a judge should grant any request for an adjournment or stay when an accused is unrepresented.
 It is an important case in Australian criminal law, and also in Australian constitutional law, since it is one of many cases in which some members of the High Court have found implied human rights in the Australian Constitution.
Kim Dotcom (born Kim Schmitz; 21 January 1974), also known as Kimble and Kim Tim Jim Vestor, is a German-Finnish Internet entrepreneur and political activist who resides in Auckland, New Zealand.
 He first rose to fame in Germany in the 1990s as an Internet entrepreneur.
In legal systems based on common law, a precedent, or authority, is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts .
 Common law legal systems place great value on deciding cases according to consistent principled rules so that similar facts will yield similar and predictable outcomes, and observance of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained.
 The principle by which judges are bound to precedents is known as stare decisis.
 Black's Law Dictionary defines "precedent" as a "rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases."
 Common law precedent is a third kind of law, on equal footing with statutory law (statutes and codes enacted by legislative bodies), and Delegated legislation (in U.K. parlance) or regulatory law (in U.S. parlance) (regulations promulgated by executive branch agencies).
Taltarum's Case is the name given to a 15th-century English legal case in the Court of Common Pleas that was generally thought to have established the operation of the common recovery.
 The latter was a collusive legal procedure designed to evade the statute "De donis conditionalibus", and was for centuries an important element of English law of real property.
 The recovery operated to break an entail on freehold or copyhold property held in fee tail - which could not be freely sold or transferred - leaving it in fee simple, so that it could be freely sold or a new settlement arranged.
 Although recoveries had been used before the case to bar entails, the judges' extensive discussion of the principles involved meant that in succeeding centuries the common recovery's procedures, and even the names of some of the fictitious individuals involved in them, were modelled on the case.