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."
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.
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
I wish they would sue me so I could make some money :(
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.
Whoever this kid's lawyer is, he's got a wicked sense of humor.
FreeBSD for the impatient.
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.
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.
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!
list of alternate wikileaks domains.
The internet routes around (brain)damage(d lawyers).
Kevin Smith on Prince
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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)