Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government It's funny. Laugh. News

Facebook Moderator Gets Subpoena in Wikileaks Case 83

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the moves-of-desperation dept.
netbuzz writes "Lawyers for the Swiss bank that got the plug pulled on Wikileaks.org have dragged a Stanford grad student/human rights activist into the case because he moderated a discussion group about Wikileaks on Facebook. He has no relation to Wikileaks or the case, other than that he helped authenticate documents — completely unrelated to the bank matter — that were posted on Wikileaks. The guy and his lawyer have done a nice job of making lemonade out of this lemon, though."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Moderator Gets Subpoena in Wikileaks Case More

Facebook Moderator Gets Subpoena in Wikileaks Case

Comments Filter:
  • All Publicity Is Good Publicity, I hope he uses his five minutes of fame to make a quick buck.

    • Re:Good for him! (Score:5, Funny)

      by garett_spencley ( 193892 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @04:04PM (#22605084) Journal
      I wish they would sue me so I could make some money :(

      • Re:Good for him! (Score:5, Informative)

        by efalk ( 935211 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @07:24PM (#22606908)
        No you don't. Being sued is very very expensive, and the chances of collecting costs from the plaintif are effectively nil. The legal system loves lawsuits because it makes money for lawyers.

        I recently spent about a year's salary defending myself against a nuisance suit by a spammer. My co-defendant is still on the hook to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Feyr ( 449684 )
      IANAL, but this cases sounds like the posterchild to a countersuit for slander. calling him an officer of wikileaks when he is not, then trying to sue him, forcing him into legal expenses, this causing HIM harm.. sounds like the very definition of slander

      good luck julius

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by nomadic ( 141991 )
        IANAL, but this cases sounds like the posterchild to a countersuit for slander. calling him an officer of wikileaks when he is not, then trying to sue him, forcing him into legal expenses, this causing HIM harm.. sounds like the very definition of slander

        First of all I don't know if calling someone an officer of wikileaks is really that defamatory. Even if it were parties and attorneys enjoy a "litigation privilege" where you can't be held liable for defamatory statements made during the course of litig

  • Shotgun lawsuit? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by KublaiKhan ( 522918 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @04:02PM (#22605036) Homepage Journal
    Seems these days that, especially in these high profile cases, the lawyers are suing everybody even connected with the alleged transgressor, whether or not (as is certainly the case here) they have liability of any sort.

    Actually, this goes a bit beyond a 'shotgun' lawsuit--this is more a handgrenade lawsuit, or a roadside bomb lawsuit.

    Is there perhaps some practical means to force someone filing suit to show that the person they're filing suit against is even vaguely the correct one?
    • My father always said:

      Close only counts with horse-shoes, handgrenades, and thermonuclear devices...
    • I just don't get why these companies keep serving subpoenas to everyone. If they really want to fix their leaks they should just hire a plumber. I have the number of a guy who's really good, he fixed my toilet once. He's a bit pricey for what he does but that's not really his fault; the union drives up the prices. I'm sure he could fix this banks leaks in no time!

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by KublaiKhan ( 522918 )
        President Nixon tried that. It didn't work out too well for him.

        • President Nixon tried that. It didn't work out too well for him.
          What? You haven't heard? He got away home free despite defrauding the entire banking system of the US by removing the gold backing from the US dollar. All he had to do was divert the public attention with some wiretapping scandal.

          • He got away home free despite defrauding the entire banking system of the US by removing the gold backing from the US dollar.
            Doing this insured that the US dollar was backed-up by bullshit instead of real gold. Had he not done that, the French banks would have had economically wiped clean the US, and the US dollar would not have been worth a tenth of what it's worth right now...
            • FYI, French economy is (within 2-5% points) the size of the economy of California. Given that, can you explain how the French banks can have the turn over large enough to compete with the US banking system? And the US dollar not backed by bs. It is backed by manufacturing capacity of the US and the Saudi Oil. For all the stories that you hear of US manufacturing capacity decreasing due to companies moving outside of the borders, it is still larger than that of any nation in the world.
              • Because, per capita, the french have more gold than the US...
                • Ok, I am all for the gold standard, but this misses an important point. Even gold-backed money is useless if they don't allow one to purchase something (other than gold) of use. The French may have more money per capita, but they can buy less goods and services and oil per person because their money is backed by a lesser production capacity and virtually no oil. Nixon didn't steal the entire value of the dollar by removing the gold backing. But he did steal a significant portion of it. So now the curre
    • Based solely on the summary (If I RTFA, it wouldn't be /., innit?), this person is being served a subpoena, which is very different from being named as a defendant in the case. IANAL, but a subpoena is basically a court order to turn over evidence that may be useful to one or both parties, as part of the discovery process.

      • Served complaint, not subpoena (Score:5, Informative)

        by DustyShadow ( 691635 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @04:44PM (#22605586) Homepage
        I thought the same thing as you at first. If you read this [justia.com] it looks like he was served the complaint and added as a defendant. Subpoenas are usually served to someone to produce documents or to show up in court. This looks to me though like they added him as a defendant.
        • I think the reason for this might be that they could have a greater amount of latitude with discovery then naming something and requesting a statement or copies of it.

          Also, I haven't checked on the exact laws involved with the grounds of the suit, but sometimes they are so vague or broad that they would include after the fact participants. This would discourage the future incident when someone thinks they could hide behind a friend or acquaintance to end up pulling off something like this.

          When financial inf

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by KublaiKhan ( 522918 )
        It's still legal action directed against someone who's entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand.

        Not that these folks seem to get the concept of logic, what with their statements of "these documents are fake...but they're our private documents" and the like.

        Last time I saw logic like that displayed was with the records of the Scientology trial from a while back, the one where they denied the Xenu story but claimed the documents elucidating it were secret church copyrighted stuff.
    • Actually, this goes a bit beyond a 'shotgun' lawsuit--this is more a handgrenade lawsuit, or a roadside bomb lawsuit.

      Can we get lawyers sent to Guantanamo for terrorist barratry?? 'Cause that would be awesome.

  • nice job the law firm is doing (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nuzak ( 959558 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @04:04PM (#22605076) Journal
    This is the same firm that on repeat occasions refused to identify its client. IANAL, but isn't that a serious breach of bar rules?

  • Noam Chomsky (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Shambly ( 1075137 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @04:04PM (#22605088)
    Apparently Noam Chomsky was also a moderator on that facebook group. It would be really interesting if he was pulled into this. Really the problem seems to be the injunction on the entire site instead of the specific documents.

    • Re:Noam Chomsky (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nuzak ( 959558 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @04:10PM (#22605174) Journal
      Enjoining the specific document would of course require the cooperation of WikiLeaks, which for some inexplicable reason, it doesn't want to do :^)

      This is really rich though. At this rate, the Swiss authorities are likely to bring the hammer down on Julius Baer, just to get their banking system out of the spotlight. Normally it'd blow over, but these clowns just keep handing major international media new stories on this every damn day.
    • I'm fairly certain "Noam Chomsky" was a facebook gimmick account--which would make it even more interesting if he were pulled in.

  • It's not karma whoring when you're anonymous (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 29, 2008 @04:05PM (#22605112)
    Here's an update on the case. [news.com] Arguments were heard all morning from both sides; the case is currently in recess.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Chyeld ( 713439 )
      By the time I read the article, (4:13pm CST) the decision had already been handed down, the order has been rescinded.

  • That is indeed like goldy, but made of iron. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by discogravy ( 455376 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @04:08PM (#22605152) Homepage
    If the meat of the article is so small, why not just post the moneyshot while you're at it?

    Mathews and his attorney, Joshua Kolten, have decided to make lemonade out of lemons: Since the bank insists Mathews has standing in the case, Mathews is asking the judge to consider the harm that the court's earlier injunction against Wikileaks has done to him; namely that it has prevented readers from accessing on Wikileaks the material he has written about subjects completely unrelated to the bank and its business.

    Whoever this kid's lawyer is, he's got a wicked sense of humor.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by KublaiKhan ( 522918 )
      Well, hell, if he's -already- having to hire the lawyer, he may as well -do- something with 'im, ne? No sense wasting money; it'll take the same number of billable hours to accomplish either thing.

  • Facebook are bastards! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lixee ( 863589 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @04:15PM (#22605236)
    I don't know if you've heard of this judicial world premiere; a 26 years old Moroccan engineer was kidnapped, tortured and thrown out in jail for creating a Facebook profile using the name of the king's brother. He was charged with "villainous activities" although the only thing he did with the account was send a smiley.

    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080310/lalami [thenation.com]
    http://blogs.zdnet.com/threatchaos/?p=545 [zdnet.com]

    Anyway, Facebook denied handing out his data to the Moroccan government, but in this so-called "terror-age", I don't buy that for a second.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120424448908501345.html?mod=technology_main_whats_news [wsj.com]

    • Re:Facebook are bastards! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Dhalka226 ( 559740 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @04:50PM (#22605642)

      So, for clarity...

      Facebook are bastards because they denied doing something and you don't believe them, despite having no actual evidence--not even really any conjecture other than a lame-ass "in this so-called 'terror age'"--that they did so?

      Gotcha.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lixee ( 863589 )
        Not quite. I just needed a way to push the word out without seeming too much off-topic. You know, in case anyone was under the impression that Morocco's anywhere near close to a democratic regime.
    • The Moroccan government could have easily figured it out with a wiretap.

  • Facebook group in question .. (Score:5, Informative)

    by PFAK ( 524350 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @04:18PM (#22605290)
    is: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2257397452 [facebook.com]

    I for one, have decided to join it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rvw ( 755107 )

      I for one, have decided to join it.
      It seems, once your in, the leaking of your privacy has started and you can't stop it anymore!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by esocid ( 946821 )
      Then you better prepare for an indictment by getting a lawyer as well.

  • Thanks Lavely & Singer ! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by greenslashpurple ( 1236792 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @04:35PM (#22605466)
    I didn't even _know_ there was a Wikileaks Facebook discussion group hosted, in part, by Noam Chomsky. I love Chomsky and would love to hear his insights into this whole debacle. Thanks Lavely and Singer!

  • So this apparently means that ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MrNougat ( 927651 ) <ckratsch@@@gmail...com> on Friday February 29, 2008 @04:46PM (#22605602)
    Now, a prosecuting attorney on any case - even on a case with questionable merit to begin with - can subpoena anyone they like, so long as they can demonstrate that the target of the subpoena may have discussed the issue in the case with other people who are also not related to the case in any other fashion?

    I don't understand why the obviously innocent bystander's attorney has to play that weird gambit. Shouldn't the argument be that the target of the subpoena is completely unrelated to the case, and now you have to pay the costs this innocent defendant has incurred?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 91degrees ( 207121 )
      I think so. It seems that the legal system is designed with an assumption that being dragged away from your normal life to sit in a courtroom to answer probing questions is of minimal inconvenience.
    • It doesn't mean that they'll win. In fact they probably don't intend to win. They just want to keep the case rolling along, possibly until they can get their hooks into a juicier target.

      The legal system, in the US, is very permissive about bringing the weight of accusation and suspicion on an individual. The philosophy seems to be that the only thing that matters is that the Truth Prevail. They treat the time and cost to the individual of participating in the search for Truth as negligible. For examp

  • Totally unsurprising, though (Score:4, Funny)

    by Kupfernigk ( 1190345 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @05:06PM (#22605794)
    National stereotypes collide. Anal Swiss bankers meet predatory American lawyers. No good can come of it.

    Now a story (from an Italian friend living in Zug) to explain the Swiss mentality. A bit off topic, but you need to understand the Swiss to get the background.

    A small factory owner lives in Zug, a few miles from Zurich, and has a son. The son grows up and marries a girl from Zurich, then goes to live there. For eighteen months he commutes back to work in his father's factory, then suddenly his father sacks him. He asks why. Reply: "All you people from Zurich are untrustworthy".

    Since the fall of the Wall in 1990, _nobody_ in Europe does guilt by association like the Swiss.

  • Since I have actually used Wikileaks . . . as a user (or a customer) am I going to get a cease and desist order if they lose this round?
    • I don't know If I would have actually admitted to that MR Conklin. It seem now that anyone who think they might have been harmed by you as a user/customer of Wikkileaks might have grounds now. You might get a cease and desist order independent of their win or loss of this round.

      Seriously dude. Watch what you say when your homepage points to yourself.

  • email subpeona? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sfjoe ( 470510 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @05:20PM (#22605952)
    Since when did it become valid to serve notice vbia email:

    "Plaintiffs served a copy of the TRO and OSC on the Wikileaks Defendants via e-mail, per the Court's prior order, to the personal e-mail address for a listed officer of Wikileaks."

    If I ever get one of these, I'll just delete it and let them prove they delivered it.
    • I think the crucial note there is 'per the Court's prior order'.

      I don't know about the Rules of Civil Procedure for this jurisdiction, but in mine a Court can issue an order allowing you to serve specific individuals in any way the court decides. If, for example, they knew nothing about the individual other than his e-mail address, it's not inconceivable that the lawyer would petition the court to allow service via e-mail, and I see no real reason for the court to deny it.

      Moreover, if you DID receive it, de
      • Well, you could certainly delete it without knowing what was in it. I received a few emails from a court in the past and just deleted it as spam or a scam.

        But I think your right about the e-mail being the only contact. And then that would be a reasonable reason to force the provider to give up their identity so a traditional process could be used. But if you could get around several months of legal battles by serving e-mail first, it would be worth it. I think they pick their non-traditional methods as to
        • Could it be they asked your parents, or someone who knew where you were?
          • It's possible but I didn't live with them at the time either. Of course they could have went there looking first and was told I would either be at home or dian's house.
  • Let's say you're in the government and you want to discredit your opponent. All you have to do is make up a story about them and post it on wikileaks, and everyone will go around repeating it like it's the truth. Won't this be fun?

  • It's is giving Wikileaks publicity (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FromTheAir ( 938543 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @10:13PM (#22607722) Homepage
    That is a positive. Interesting how it works but it's the old ban a book and everyone wants to read it, so it gets read which is the opposite the objective of the censors. Whenever you try to silence something you bring attention to it. This bank is bringing attention to The New Transparency and the end of secrets.
  • Teh laywers grasp every straw or put up a massive leagal wall to intimidate the opposition. I got dozens of subpeonas when I was a minor player in costly auto accident.

Slashdot Top Deals

You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.

Close