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

an honest judge

[Will the Chill]

Judge White seems to have made appropriate decisions, as he only passed the original injunction because of the (purposefully unfair) timing of the court date leading to an under-represented WikiLeaks. He says that his subsequent review of the case revealed the obvious conflict with free speech rights, and has reversed the injunction so WikiLeaks can get its domain back.

The main point to take away is that they still have to go through litigation, as this just removes the injunction against WikiLeaks' primary US domain name.

-Will the Chill

*sig.com: domain not found*

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*

bullshit

[SuperBanana]

He defended his prior ruling because it was based on the pittance of information the bank and registrar had provided him

And acting on a pittance of information to such an extreme, when you have the full power to say, "Go fish, I need more information before I'll shut down an entire website", is excusable how?

Injunctions are supposed to be used only when the plaintiff has presented PROOF that irreparable damages will occur unless they get said injunction. It's not even enough to say that enormous damage will be done- it has to be irreparable.

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.

Be Clear: The domain owner is in Australia

[IBitOBear]

Just to clarify, the "owner" of Wikileaks.org isn't in the USA, let alone California. His registrar is, which is why the bank attacked there with the intent of creating the injunction. The guy is in Australia.

How would you like to find that you registered a domain name, and suddenly you were part of a civil litigation on another continent?

That's why the ruling where the judge granted himself jursidiction after being duped into luring someone into providing a lawyer across an ocean is outrageous.

This is, in some odd way, like some bizzaro-world civil entrapment.

Re:not necessarily a dishonest judge

[IBitOBear]

It was _not_ honest nor competent to give himself jusrisdiction over someone because he lured them into providing legal council because of his own previous mistake.

Were he honest, he would have voided his injunction and then ruled that he didn't have jurisdiction to hear any of that mess.

Why?

For the same reason that some random Shaia judge in some foreign country isn't allowed to rule on what you say or do.

The web site isn't in this country. The owner of record isn't in this country. The bank inst in this country.

(It's as if I were suing you in Mexico [presuming you are not Mexican, and knowing I am not] because your stationary printing was outsourced to a Mexican company, and some Mexican judge, having sent cops to your house to steal all your papers, ruled that since you sent someone to Mexico to ask for it back, you clearly intend to represent yourself there in his court.)

It's bull. There is no such thing as "entrapment" in civil court, but this is something very like that.