The Wikileaks Injunction Case

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Have Lavely & Singer hoist their client Bank Julius Baer with their own legalistic petard ?

    2. “JB Property” Defined: JB Property includes any and all documents and information originating from Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd’s and Julius Baer Bank and Trust Co. Ltd’s banks and affiliated bank branches, which are internal non- public company documents and/or which contains private client or customer bank records and/or identifies client or customer names, data, account records and/or bank account numbers, whether or not such documents and information are authentic, semi-altered, semi-fraudulent or forged, and which appears to have originated from or could reasonably be known to be or considered to constitute or have originated from data and documents stolen or misappropriated from one or more of Plaintiff’s bank branches and/or computers. For example, but is not limited to, the JB Property posted on or made available through the Wikileaks Websites that is subject to this Order and enjoined from further use, display, post, publication, distribution, linking to and/or other dissemination, is listed and set forth on the attached Exhibit “A”.

    How can an external Internet Service Provider, or even the internal Bank Julius Baer personnel, guess whether or not a particular document or data transfer is an “authentic, semi-altered, semi-fraudulent or forged” version of the documents listed in Exhibit “A”, or of documents which are relevant, but which are not listed ?

    How can they know whether or not the whistleblowers are still trying to send allegedly confidential data to Wikileaks ?

    Surely any ISP under US Federal Court jurisdiction must now block all Bank Julius Baer internet traffic, emails, file transfers, web pages etc. in respect of their private customer electronic banking and electronic investment portfolio and investment research online services via the internet ?

  2. Bruce Boyden says:

    Blog, that doesn’t strike me as a terribly difficult issue in this particular instance. Essentially, Wikileaks is being order to pull any version of the documents listed in Exhibit A, even if they’ve been altered somehow. There could theoretically be an argument that a given document has been changed so much that its unidentifiable from looking at Exhibit A, but that doesn’t appear to be a live issue here, and arguing metaphysical possibilities before the court as a reason for noncompliance is a really good way to annoy the court and lose the presumption of good faith.

    The more serious question is about the court’s authority to order the domain name disabled for the entire site based on a third party’s posting of allegedly tortiously obtained documents.

  3. Thanks for your reply. Having re-read the Order several times, the wording still seems of to cover much more than just the list of documents in Exhibit “A” or any slight variants of those documents.

    It attempts to censor the general categories of information contained within those specific documents as well.

    If lawyers use wording like “any and all documents and information” together with “whether or not such documents and information are authentic, semi-altered, semi-fraudulent or forged,” and the words “For example, but is not limited to” then they should not be surprised when the technical people with the power to cut off Bank Julius Baer from the internet, interpret this very literally, just to cover themselves.