Swiss Bank Responds To Wikileaks Incident > hmmm.......

said by woody7:

While I believe posting information that was not legally obtained isn't good, neither is a judge assuming jurisdiction over the case, and rushing to judgment.

said by soccerguy:

You're on the edge of what I think is a more important issue. What if a disgruntled employee fabricates information, posts it to an "anonymous" site like this and defames his former employer. What's the avenue of recourse?

said by Alakar:

The problem here, is that the judge's ruling was overly broad (taking down the whole site) clearly in violation of the 1st Amendment. It's also not clear that he had jurisdiction in the case.

said by amigo_boy:

I could agree with the idea that taking down the whole site is excessive. On the other hand, in the article a week or two ago "wikileaks" played coy when this could have been handled by them removing the materials without it even reaching court. If I were a judge, I wouldn't feel it necessary to quibble about exactly *which* documents when the defendant 1) appeared to act in bad faith, and 2) the site openly depicts the documents exactly as the plaintiff claims them to be (the plaintiff's property).

That doesn't mean that my broad decision as the judge would last forever. It would just mean that "wikileaks" would have to appeal the decision and make its own case which documents it will remove. In other words, it won't be me quibbling about this or that document, it will be "wikileaks" doing what it should have done when it had the opportunity before the whole thing reached court.

Mark

Wikileaks is an international in scope. You have made vague references
to several different national jurisdictions, but extremely oddly,
refuse to name your client or any matter relevant to us, including
the names of any documents you object to. Under the circumstances
we feel you may not be acting in good faith.

Your odd refusal to provide even the most basic information makes
it appear that you are trying to set up some obscure provision in
DCMA law and have little interest in resolving what you claim to
be the issue at hand when given an opportunity to do so.

Infact you have provided us with no information for us to ascertain
that we have any involvement whatsoever with your concealed client.

As a organization for justice and the upholding of first amendment
rights we are somewhat of a cause celibre amongst lawyers and are
able to maintain a pool of high first rate councel to respond to
requests, each of which specializes in some juristiction or area of
law. Refusal to identify your client and the documents concerned
makes this assignment difficult.

Are you now claiming something in relation to the DCMA? In
California? Is this your primary claim? Please be clear.

said by Alakar:

Here is part of the correspondence between Wikileaks attorney and the attorneys retained by the bank.

said by amigo_boy:

The bank's attorney simply continued to demand contact with wikileak's attorney.

inevitable occurs. It looks like people who can dish it out, but can't take it. They can use their free speech to essentially steal and slander, but when someone else uses theirs to protect their property it's an outrage?

said by russotto:

Without ever identifying the documents in question, the jurisdiction, or their client. Wikileaks couldn't know which attorney to even put them in contect with.

...
it appear that you are trying to set up some obscure provision in
DCMA law
...
Are you now claiming something in relation to the DCMA? In
California? Is this your primary claim? Please be clear.

said by soccerguy:

What if a disgruntled employee fabricates information, posts it to an "anonymous" site like this and defames his former employer. What's the avenue of recourse?

said by KrK:

Court order forcing the site to reveal the user's information, IP, etc then an investigation. Once the defamer is unmasked, then a suit against them to recover damages. That's the normal recourse.

said by KrK:

An injunction may require that the offending material be temporarily removed until the matter is resolved in court.

NOT taking down the entire website because it was quicker and more expedient.

said by amigo_boy:

And, when wikileak had the opportunity to resolve the matter out of court they played coy as if the attorney should engage them in their public forum.

If I were the judge I'd feel that the defendant would just engage in the same cat-and-mouse game that occurred when the plaintiff's lawyers approached. Take it all down and let the defendant figure out what they need to remove in order to win an appeal and get their site turned on again.

I see the judge's response being based on the defendant's contempt of the process.

said by russotto:

the correspondence you're complaining about was not submitted to the court,

said by KrK:

How can the defendant website provide an attorney if they don't even know where the case is?

said by KrK:

the judge shouldn't have known and shouldn't base a remedy based on one side's accusations only...

said by KrK:

I'm hoping a review by Appeals will agree.

said by amigo_boy:

Appeals won't find it illegal. Wikileaks will say what they'll remove from their site in order to regain operation of the site. Hopefully they've learned a lesson about how to respond to requests like this in the future.

said by KrK:

I hope they countersue for damages and win big.

said by soccerguy:

Because a soon as someone tries this, the site will scream "we're offshore and not subject to your jurisdiction" and refuse to comply.

said by russotto:

Why should a US Federal Court in California have jurisdiction over a dispute between a Swiss bank with a Cayman Islands branch and an organization not located in the US?