That seemed to be the implication.

OP specifically asked if it was pursuant to an MLAT obligation. That alone makes it clear they were asking in earnest.

And yet OP also asked how California had jurisdiction in Germany, which implies that the question was more of a passive-aggressive disapproval. Even if it was MLAT, California still wouldn't have jurisdiction in Germany. OP seems to be implying "fuck off California, you have no jurisdiction in Germany".

The whole thing seems to be more about shared moral responsibility rather than MLAT, which is what s73v3r was getting it.

Really? Cause that sounds exactly like what he was saying.