A bunch of guys in the US brought the economy to its knees, and walked away (do you need to extridate from New York City? Or can't you just drive down the street? I'll even hail the Uber for you).

A guy in New Zealand who infringed copyright, and whom the US has zero jurisdiction over, has had more legal work put into his case.

That's my argument. Complicated? I don't think so.

I'm not fond of the gentleman, but the US justice department is clearly overreaching and should be punished accordingly.

Sure, the US Justice Dept lacked the balls to go after Wall Street. Prosecute the 0.1% wealthiest and most powerful people in the country who own more than the rest of the country put together! What do you think this is, a world where all people are equal? But that does not mean they should not go after anyone who is plainly a crook. The world is unfair, but I'll prefer taking whatever little justice we can get out of it.

The US has jurisdiction because he rented servers in the US, and there's an extradition treaty.

> and there's an extradition treaty.

Only for the crimes they've attached/stretched in order to extradite, because what sane country is going to let you extradite over copyright infringement?

You're going to need more citations to make a claim like that. Which specific part of the ruling do you disagree with on legal grounds, and cite the relevant laws/treaties/precedent etc.