how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to amigo_boy
Re: Client information What's astounding is a Judge taking down an entire website over 1 document. He restrained over 20,000 pages of speech over a single document that is in question.
Doing so without hearing any kind of defense from Wikileaks. In the ex-parte motion Wikileaks wasn't allowed to present their side of the story.
The requesting party never serving Wikileaks so that they COULD show up. The Bank's lawyers never served wikileaks, although they have now served someone completely unrelated to Wikileaks through EMAIL (not proper service in the US).
That the dispute involves the whistle blower protection laws in the US that weren't even addressed.
That the Judge actually has NO jurisdiction over Wikileaks.
That the Bank's lawyers deny the document is real in public while asserting copyright in the courtroom. The banks public statements about the document should automatically raise questions with the Judge about the validity of their arguments.
That the judge took down a domain regarding something that is a HOSTING issue. The domain had nothing to do with the document, the hosting of the document is the issue. In the real world this would be akin to removing someone's name from the phone book because they are offering to copy CD's for people. Make any sense?
And finally tying back into the first that the Judge in question violated numerous supreme court rulings about restraint of speech and ruling the least harm to said speech. It's clear the Judge didn't even examine any facts in the case, simply ruled in favor of the defendants without verifying the defendants were served with sufficient notice to appear (in fact they weren't served at all, a complete violation of the federal procedural rules), without verifying that the case was valid (public statements, all parties being foreign), without considering the whistle blower protections granted by federal law, without considering the freedom of press in the constitution, and shuting down a name lookup to an entire server that is probably not even inside the US. Talk about jurisdictional issues not even being considered.
The Judge in question should lose his bench for what he did, and the lawyers for the Bank should be disbarred. We're talking egregious abuse of process. | |
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by rahvin112:The Bank's lawyers never served wikileaks, although they have now served someone completely unrelated to Wikileaks through EMAIL (not proper service in the US). It's been said the website is operated/owned in Bermuda(?) Service requirements don't apply.
said by rahvin112:That the dispute involves the whistle blower protection laws in the US that weren't even addressed. Neither do "whistle blower" protections.
If they want US protections they should reside and operate within the US. If they don't want US laws to apply, they shouldn't use a US-based web hosting company.
People usually operate off shore to evade US laws. So, it's a bit ironic that all of a sudden this topic is couched as if US laws apply, and their freedom of speech is being violated.
Mark | |
|
