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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • an honest judge (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Will the Chill (78436) on Friday February 29, 2008 @11:38PM (#22607818) Homepage
    Judge White seems to have made appropriate decisions, as he only passed the original injunction because of the (purposefully unfair) timing of the court date leading to an under-represented WikiLeaks. He says that his subsequent review of the case revealed the obvious conflict with free speech rights, and has reversed the injunction so WikiLeaks can get its domain back.

    The main point to take away is that they still have to go through litigation, as this just removes the injunction against WikiLeaks' primary US domain name.

    -Will the Chill

    *sig.com: domain not found*
  • bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuperBanana (662181) on Saturday March 01, 2008 @12:23AM (#22607986)

    He defended his prior ruling because it was based on the pittance of information the bank and registrar had provided him

    And acting on a pittance of information to such an extreme, when you have the full power to say, "Go fish, I need more information before I'll shut down an entire website", is excusable how?

    Injunctions are supposed to be used only when the plaintiff has presented PROOF that irreparable damages will occur unless they get said injunction. It's not even enough to say that enormous damage will be done- it has to be irreparable.

  • by IBitOBear (410965) on Saturday March 01, 2008 @12:32AM (#22608014) Homepage Journal
    Well, the "trick" still worked. Wikileaks is now "properly before the court since they sent [council]". So now the case is before a judge who had _no_ jurisdiction because the judge wasn't honest enough to say "this shouldn't have come before me, get out".

    So now the same easily hoodwinked judge is going to be the one to rule over something that isn't even in this country.

    That is _not_ honest, nor is it justice.

    The system was gamed. That it may not be an _utter_ disaster in the final ruling doesn't mitigate the fact that it shouldn't be happening at all.
  • Re:bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dirk (87083) <dirk@one.net> on Saturday March 01, 2008 @12:42AM (#22608060) Homepage
    He acted on the information because wikileaks didn't bother to dispute any of it (why they didn't is up for debate). He had one side showing up and claiming they were being horribly harmed by a website and it would kill their business and kick puppies and whatever else they claimed. The judge looked to the other side to ask if any of this was true, and there was no one there to tell him it wasn't, so he had believed the only information in front of him and acted on it.

    This just shows that if you are being sued, simply hiding and avoiding it is not usually a good course of action, especially if you think the case has no merit. IF the judge only has 1 side talking to him, he is going to listen to them.
  • by Will the Chill (78436) on Saturday March 01, 2008 @12:44AM (#22608066) Homepage
    Yes, Judge White was "gamed" by BJB into imposing the original injunction. I simply maintain that this was caused by the fraudulent bank's overly-aggressive initial legal activities, /not/ due to a blatently dishonest and incompetent judge.

    I fully agree it is possible that Judge White is not the proper or final judge for this case. I'm only saying he /seems/ to have made an "honest" mistake and has taken the appropriate steps to apoligize and rectify.

    Maybe the judge is a big, fat liar. I don't know, although I would like to hope he isn't.

    -Will the Chill

    *sig under contest*
  • by IBitOBear (410965) on Saturday March 01, 2008 @12:44AM (#22608068) Homepage Journal
    Just to clarify, the "owner" of Wikileaks.org isn't in the USA, let alone California. His registrar is, which is why the bank attacked there with the intent of creating the injunction. The guy is in Australia.

    How would you like to find that you registered a domain name, and suddenly you were part of a civil litigation on another continent?

    That's why the ruling where the judge granted himself jursidiction after being duped into luring someone into providing a lawyer across an ocean is outrageous.

    This is, in some odd way, like some bizzaro-world civil entrapment.
  • by IBitOBear (410965) on Saturday March 01, 2008 @12:51AM (#22608086) Homepage Journal
    It was _not_ honest nor competent to give himself jusrisdiction over someone because he lured them into providing legal council because of his own previous mistake.

    Were he honest, he would have voided his injunction and then ruled that he didn't have jurisdiction to hear any of that mess.

    Why?

    For the same reason that some random Shaia judge in some foreign country isn't allowed to rule on what you say or do.

    The web site isn't in this country. The owner of record isn't in this country. The bank inst in this country.

    (It's as if I were suing you in Mexico [presuming you are not Mexican, and knowing I am not] because your stationary printing was outsourced to a Mexican company, and some Mexican judge, having sent cops to your house to steal all your papers, ruled that since you sent someone to Mexico to ask for it back, you clearly intend to represent yourself there in his court.)

    It's bull. There is no such thing as "entrapment" in civil court, but this is something very like that.
  • Re:an honest judge (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ruinevil (852677) on Saturday March 01, 2008 @01:11AM (#22608146)
    If the litigation runs long enough and though a few appeals, maybe it will entrap Julius Baer into American banking laws, since the American government always needs more money.

    Anyways, with the injunction lifted, can Wikileaks now transfer the domain name out of the country? There is something very wrong in the world if two organizations that pride themselves as being anonymous and beyond of the reach of America laws/taxes duke it out in an American court.
  • by theNAM666 (179776) on Saturday March 01, 2008 @01:15AM (#22608162)
    OK, so the logical next step here is to transfer to a registrar in Norway (or other independent jurisdiction), effectively bystepping Dynadot and making the US case moot, right?
  • by theNAM666 (179776) on Saturday March 01, 2008 @06:54PM (#22612172)
    They are still registered with DynaDot, and the only change in the record is that 'status' has been updated from "CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED" to "OK". Viz:

    Domain ID:D130035267-LROR
    Domain Name:WIKILEAKS.ORG
    Created On:04-Oct-2006 05:54:19 UTC
    Last Updated On:01-Mar-2008 01:15:18 UTC
    Expiration Date:04-Oct-2008 05:54:19 UTC
    Sponsoring Registrar:Dynadot, LLC (R1266-LROR)
    Status:OK
    Registrant ID:C-13000
    Registrant Name:John Shipton
    Registrant Street1:c/o WLK PO Box 8098-00200
    Registrant Street2:
    Registrant Street3:
    Registrant City:Nairobi
    Registrant State/Province:
    Registrant Postal Code:none
    Registrant Country:KE
    Registrant Phone:+1.2026576222
    Registrant Phone Ext.:
    Registrant FAX:
    Registrant FAX Ext.:
    Registrant Email:an1984@hush.com
    Admin ID:C-13000
    Admin Name:John Shipton
    Admin Street1:c/o WLK PO Box 8098-00200
    Admin Street2:
    Admin Street3:
    Admin City:Nairobi
    Admin State/Province:
    Admin Postal Code:none
    Admin Country:KE
    Admin Phone:+1.2026576222
    Admin Phone Ext.:
    Admin FAX:
    Admin FAX Ext.:
    Admin Email:an1984@hush.com
    Tech ID:C-13000
    Tech Name:John Shipton
    Tech Street1:c/o WLK PO Box 8098-00200
    Tech Street2:
    Tech Street3:
    Tech City:Nairobi
    Tech State/Province:
    Tech Postal Code:none
    Tech Country:KE
    Tech Phone:+1.2026576222
    Tech Phone Ext.:
    Tech FAX:
    Tech FAX Ext.:
    Tech Email:an1984@hush.com
    Name Server:NS1.EVERYDNS.NET
    Name Server:NS2.EVERYDNS.NET
    Name Server:NS3.EVERYDNS.NET
    Name Server:NS4.EVERYDNS.NET
    Name Server:
    Name Server:

  • Re:an honest judge (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rahvin112 (446269) on Sunday March 02, 2008 @05:28AM (#22614548)
    Judge White made a terrible decision. A jaw dropping horrible decision. A decision so horrible it drew in briefs from the who's who of top civil rights defense organizations. Close to 20 separate nonprofit civil rights groups including the EFF, Librarians association, Public Citizen and ACLU.

    He failed to even ask basic questions about why he was hearing a case by a foreign bank against an Australian living in Kenya. He failed to even ask basic questions about why he was in an exparte motion on document exposure with a foreign bank. He failed to verify that Wikileaks had been properly served. They HADN'T, unless you think a vague threat of court action possibly taking place in three separate countries by email counts as proper service. He failed to ask even rudimentary questions about why he was being asked to take down the domain name for an organization with over 20,000 documents exposing fraud and public misdeeds over the release of a single set of documents that purport to show company sanctioned money laundering by one of Switzerlands top banks. He failed to even consider that the public value of the document as press overrides the copyright considerations. He failed to even read the injunction he signed, as all he did was cross out the proposed on the top of what Baer's lawyers had given him. He absolutely failed to consider the freedom of press as it relates to these documents. He absolutely failed in almost every respect.

    Judge White's actions, not only in allowing the case to go forward when it's CLEAR he has no jurisdiction in the case and his previous actions lead me to believe he is nothing short of incompetent in the job. Judge White is a danger to the American justice system and should be removed from the bench. His actions were clearly negligent and a breach of everything this country stands for and a slap in the face of justice.

    And just to throw a little analogy your way what he did was the equivalent of removing a foreign citizens name from an international phone book at the request of a foreign company over the dispute of a published editorial on the conduct of said company. The decision was one of the worst made in the last 10 years by an American court. Jaw dropping horrible, not a single basis in law or even common sense for how he ruled.

    Taking the time to defend his judgment to the press (and not the parties to the suit) shows just how bad the decision was and was simply an attempt to cover his ass. In fact I'm even more offended by the Judges actions by his attempt to defend his terrible ruling including blatantly lieing that WIkileaks was properly served. Had the Judge an ounce of honesty he would have admitted his negligence and transfered the case to another Judge to rule on the jurisdictional issue. Instead he rules that Wikileaks sending council to get their domain name back amounted to them admitting jurisdiction. If he was a cop that would have been entrapment, his actions and his rulings prove that him remaining on the bench is a danger and he should lose his bench immediately for gross misconduct. In fact I would go a step further and say he shouldn't just lose his bench, he should be disbarred and lose his license to practice law in every state. Not only that but the Hollywood lawyers involved for the bank should also be disbarred for what they did as they clearly violated the federal procedural rules and gamed the system. Not only that but I wouldn't be surprised if you examined the record and there is a similar course of action taken by this judge when dealing with lawyers from this firm in the past. This was far to horrible to be a freak ruling or one time incident.

    Don't defend the actions of this Judge, be horrified that he made such a terrible ruling and be shocked that no action will be taken against him for it.

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.

Working...