Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Moderator Gets Subpoena in Wikileaks Case

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on 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."

8 of 83 comments (clear)

  1. Re:ummm by KublaiKhan · · Score: 2, Informative

    Fairly obvious--it's about money laundering. Look 'em up on wikileaks if you're curious.

    --
    In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
    A stately pleasure dome decree
  2. It's not karma whoring when you're anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's an update on the case. Arguments were heard all morning from both sides; the case is currently in recess.

  3. Facebook group in question .. by PFAK · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?
  4. Re:ummm by trolltalk.com · · Score: 3, Informative

    If only there were a centralized -- or decentralized, but easily available -- site where leaked documents like these could be posted for perusal. Alas, what a pipe dream in these United States.

    list of alternate wikileaks domains.

    The internet routes around (brain)damage(d lawyers).

    --
    Kevin Smith on Prince
  5. Served complaint, not subpoena by DustyShadow · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  6. Re:ummm by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Informative

    1: These are leaked documents. Any bank has major issues with leaks.
    2: They suggest that the bank is involved in money laundering or tax evasions.
    3: Many of the names leaked are apparently quite important.

    So there's not really a need for a lot of effort. Any one of these three reasons is enough.

  7. Re:Good for him! by nomadic · · Score: 2, Informative

    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 litigation.

  8. Re:Good for him! by efalk · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.