Wikileaks Gets Domain Back, Injunction Dissolved

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The judge in the Wikileaks case has dissolved the injunction against Wikileaks, which means that it can get its .org domain back. He defended his prior ruling because it was based on the pittance of information the bank and registrar had provided him, saying 'This is a case in which we had a (dispute) with named parties, and the parties were duly served. One of which properly responded and came to this court with a proposed settlement in this lawsuit... Nobody filed any timely responses to the court's order.'"

Comments

Properly Served?

[Bruce Perens]

It wasn't clear to me that the wikileaks folks really were properly served. Well, they were probably doing their best to avoid being properly served.

Re: Properly Served?

[Will the Chill]

I think it's clear that WikiLeaks was practicing "non-violent resistance" in this case. Of course, that's probably their policy for dealing with such situations, as they have doubtless encountered before.

Regardless, it is obviously unjust to assume guilt in a case of passive resistance against aggressive persecution from a (seemingly) fraudulent entity. Thus, Judge White dissolved the injunction and the litigation shall ensue.

I suppose WikiLeaks' behavior is fairly logical considering the nature of their cause and the extreme prejudice of this particular corporation. I'm just glad that 10+ freedom-loving lawyers were/are willing to step up to bat on their side.

-Will the Chill

*sig not available, please try again later*

Re: Properly Served?

[sumdumass]

You know, I was with you all the way up until you limited your comments to George the second.

This has been in practice well before Bush or any George was in power in the US. Besides, it is the congress which makes the laws and the courts who make most of their own rules they operate under. So placing blame on a president is a bit of a stretch to begin with let alone placing it on one years separated from the beginning of the process.

I know a guy who all the sudden had 35% of his pay missing and when complaining he found that it was being garnished by some court 2 counties away. After investigating there, he found that some girl he had a one night stand with claimed paternity, claimed he couldn't be located so they were able to run notice in the city/county newspaper to set a trial date, and because he didn't show up, she won by default and the judge imposed the maximum child support allowed by state at the time (which was a percentage of income) and allowed it to be garnished if they could track his employer down. This was in 1984-85 or round about there so I know it has been going on for at least that long. Of course he appealed and got a blood test proving he wasn't the father but it took 5 years to do it. And he never got any of his money back. Sure he got a judgment a few years later but it had all been spent and she didn't have anything of her own to take.

In fact, it is common for a judge to issue orders to protect against whatever damage is claimed to be happening in cases like these until the facts can be sorted out. And when someone doesn't show up to offer their side of the story, well you know what happened.

Re: Properly Served?

[frdmfghtr]

I find it interesting that he couldn't be tracked down to be properly served, yet he could be tracked down to pay up.

The persistently unfair part

[IBitOBear]

The judge also ruled that Wikileaks is now "properly before him" because they sent a lawyer.

So effectively the bad people managed game Wikileaks into a jurisdiction that has nothing to do with them.

So damage has been done in a real and unjust way as a side effect of the bad ruling.

Just like in sports, it isn't fair for the ref, having screwed up in the first quarter, cannot "make it right" by ruling arbitrarily against the other team in the third quarter.

Re:an (dis)honest judge

[CrazedWalrus]

The New York Times coverage has a few interesting quotes:

William J. Briggs II, a lawyer representing the bank, said the decision "abdicated federal judicial authority to the Internet."

...presupposing that the federal judiciary ever had control over "the internet".

From the judge:

"The court is telling you, you can't rein this in," he added, "and I think that's a sad commentary."

Why is it a sad commentary, when a judiciary with questionable or no jurisdiction can't remove information from another country's computers? Okay, I can think of a few Think-Of-The-Children reasons, but really, this is where the censorship-as-damage principle really shines.

The judge didn't get it, still doesn't get it, and is only reversing his ruling because he's taken a bunch of flack over a futile effort that he knows he doesn't understand.