Wikileaks Gets Domain Back, Injunction Dissolved 70
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.'"
an honest judge (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:an (dis)honest judge (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
not necessarily a dishonest judge (Score:1, Insightful)
I fully agree it is possible that Judge White is not the proper or final judge for this case. I'm only saying he
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*
Be Clear: The domain owner is in Australia (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:not necessarily a dishonest judge (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Next step: change registrar to Norway... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Next step: change registrar to Norway... (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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.