Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Moderator Gets Subpoena in Wikileaks Case
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."
All Publicity Is Good Publicity, I hope he uses his five minutes of fame to make a quick buck.
Just -1, Troll talking to another.
Isn't it time for a concerted effort to see exactly what the bank is so worried about in these famous documents?
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?
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
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?
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
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.
Here's an update on the case. Arguments were heard all morning from both sides; the case is currently in recess.
Since that legs gone, I guess they're going to start shooting the other foot!
There is a war going on for your mind.
Whoever this kid's lawyer is, he's got a wicked sense of humor.
FreeBSD for the impatient.
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
http://blogs.zdnet.com/threatchaos/?p=545
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
Res publica non dominetur
is: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2257397452
I for one, have decided to join it.
Free means no restrictions, ironic the FSF's GPL forces restrictions, isn't it? What's your definition of free?
too bad, i wikileaked your id.. not so anonymous now are you? you will be hearing from my lawyers shortly.
Well, I went to wikileaks to find the guy's ID and seems the URL is invalid.
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!
I thought the same thing as you at first. If you read this 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.
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?
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
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.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
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?
Hope is the worst of evils, for it prolongs the torment of man. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
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.
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
Actually, in my state, You are asked to card anyone who looks under twenty-eight.
Crap. What did the new CSS do with the "Post anonymously" option??
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?
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
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
I'm not a lawyer either, but a quick search on Google for slander would've quickly told you that it's not.
1) The statement has to be false.
2) The statement has to "harm the person's reputation or standing in the community."
3) If the statement has the potential to reach a very wide audience, such as one made over broadcast media or in writing, it's libel instead.
Their statements were false, but they are unlikely to harm his reputation or standing in the community, and they were not made verbally in a relatively private setting.
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.
"an infinite player that has lost his finite mind" ~Infinite Play the Movie (it blends with reality)
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 example, the courts tend to look benignly on criminal investigations, so long as they are conducted according to the rules.
Clever attorneys have realized that for a client who is playing a game of hot potato, bringing more players into the litigation game means each round lasts longer. Eventually, everybody in the game ends up with burned hands, but in the short run it takes some heat off their client. It may even allow the client to engineer an exit from the game, but even if he can't, the first instinct of the scammer is to keep the game rolling. It doesn't matter to the lawyer, who collects his fees; it doesn't matter to the client, for whom the fees are worth less than the value of prolonging the game. It does matter to the people roped into the process.
The only conceivable reason to do something so patently absurd is to slow down the legal process. In theory the system comes down hard on people who obstruct it, but in practice it is tolerant of many tactical abuses that a priori benefit justice in some cases.
In any case, the reason the defendant is going along is because unlike most people in his position, he has a use for being roped into the process. Since he's going to be part of this case whether he wants to or not, he's going to use it to make a point. The marginal cost to him isn't very high, and it's not as if the courts can punish him for acting ironically when their insistence on his participation is patently farcical.
Shows that the banks lawyers probably made a bad mistake here. The people at the bank may not even care much about the outcome of the case, since the cost to them is chicken feed. But in business, the primary thing you pay lawyers for is predictability. When you enter into any activity like a contract or a strategic lawsuit, you want to set an upper limit on what you pay and a lower limit on what you get out of it. Picking out a patsy who might actually have an interest in participating adds an unpredictable element to the proceedings, especially if the patsy has a penchant for creative lawyering. I bet that after a decent but short interval the plaintiff will back off on this guy and throw some shit against a different wall.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.