Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government The Courts News

Wikileaks Gets Domain Back, Injunction Dissolved 70

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the it-all-sounds-like-dirty-pool-to-me dept.
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The judge in the Wikileaks case has dissolved the injunction against Wikileaks, which means that it can get its .org domain back. He defended his prior ruling because it was based on the pittance of information the bank and registrar had provided him, saying 'This is a case in which we had a (dispute) with named parties, and the parties were duly served. One of which properly responded and came to this court with a proposed settlement in this lawsuit... Nobody filed any timely responses to the court's order.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wikileaks Gets Domain Back, Injunction Dissolved

Comments Filter:
  • Re:That's funny... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Atlantis-Rising (857278) on Saturday March 01, 2008 @12:05AM (#22607936) Homepage
    As a rule, the court doesn't bother doing that sort of thing. If somebody doesn't show up, they don't get to defend themselves, pretty much. That generally leads them to lose.

  • Re:bullshit (Score:4, Informative)

    by humphrm (18130) on Saturday March 01, 2008 @01:29AM (#22608204) Homepage
    Absolutely correct. The irony is that an injunction hearing is not technically "litigation", many people try to avoid "litigation" because without proper service and representation in court, you can't be held responsible. But in the case of injunction hearings, that doesn't hold true, and defendants need to be more selective about their use of the "hide to avoid responsibility" defense.
  • by KiahZero (610862) on Saturday March 01, 2008 @03:17AM (#22608578)
    I don't know what decision you're reading, but the order I'm reading seems to indicate that Judge White doesn't think that the Court has jurisdiction:
    http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/baer_v_wikileaks/wikileaks102.pdf [eff.org]

    From the founding of the federal courts, it has been unanimously held that "the courts of
    the United States have no jurisdiction of cases between aliens." Montalet v. Murray, 8 U.S. (4
    Cranch) 46 (1807). The Ninth Circuit has adhered to this rule. "Diversity jurisdiction does not
    encompass foreign plaintiffs suing foreign defendants." Cheng v. Boeing Co., 708 F.2d 1406,
    1412 (9th Cir. 1983). The presence of citizen defendants does not preserve jurisdiction as to the
    alien. Faysound Limited v. United Coconut Chemical, Inc., 878 F.2d 290, 294 (9th Cir. 1989)
    (citing Boeing, 708 F.2d at 1412). In order for the Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction
    over this matter, complete diversity must be established under the original Complaint. See
    Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978).
    The Court is concerned that it may well lack subject matter jurisdiction over this matter
    in its entirety. 1
    1) Although Plaintiffs pleaded jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1350 for a "civil action
    by an alien for a tort committed in violation of a treaty of the United States," the Complaint
    does not state a cause of action under any specific treaty, and counsel for Plaintiffs conceded
    that the Court does not maintain jurisdiction under this alternative ground. (See Compl.,
    2.)
    Additionally, while I don't remember much from Civil Procedure, I do recall that appearing in court to challenge personal jurisdiction doesn't grant the court personal jurisdiction.

Brain fried -- Core dumped

Working...