The WikiLeakS.org domain name has now been restored, and seems to be working ok.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a copy of the
Order Denying Preliminary Injunction; Dissolving Permanent Injunction; and Setting Briefing and Hearing Schedule (.pdf 7 pages)
Here are a few highlights:
1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction.[...]
Although there is no firm evidence of the United States District Court
citizenship of the named defendants, except Dynadot, during the oral argument on the pending motion, counsel for Mr. Shipton appeared and represented that the owner of the domain name wikileaks.org is a citizen of Australia and a resident of Kenya.[...]
The Court is concerned that it may well lack subject matter jurisdiction over this matter in its entirety.1
[...]
1 Although Plaintiffs pleaded jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1350 for a "civil action by an alien for a tort committed in violation of a treaty of the United States," the Complaint does not state a cause of action under any specific treaty, and counsel for Plaintiffs conceded that the Court does not maintain jurisdiction under this alternative ground. (See Compl., ¶ 2.)
Bank Julius Baer and their lawyers Lavely & Singer consistently failed to mention to the Court the fact that the disputed documents were being published from web server(s) based in Stockholm , Sweden,
They also tried to give the false impression that the a Swiss Bank , its Cayman Islands tax haven subsidiary, and WikiLeakS.org were somehow under US jurisdiction in California, and that the US federal Court had "diversity jurisdiction".
2. Public Interest.[...]
Although the matter of the First Amendment implications of the permanent injunction against Dynadot or the more limited preliminary injunction Plaintiffs seek against WikiLeaks has not been fully briefed, it is clear that in all but the most exceptional circumstances, an injunction restricting speech pending final resolution of the constitutional concerns is impermissible. See Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Trust Co., 78 F.3d 219, 226-27 (6th Cir. 1996).
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, guaranteeing freedom of speech and freedom of the press, has been upheld.
3. Efficacy of an Injunction.The record currently before the Court indicates that even the broad injunction issued as to Dynadot had exactly the opposite effect as was intended. The private, stolen material was transmitted over the internet via mirror websites which are maintained in different countries all over the world. Further, the press generated by this Court's action increased public attention to the fact that such information was readily accessible online. The Court is not convinced that Plaintiffs have made an adequate showing that any restraining injunction in this case would serve its intended purpose. See Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 569 (1976). In addition, there is evidence in the record that "the cat is out of the bag" and the issuance of an injunction would therefore be ineffective to protect the professed privacy rights of the bank's clients.
[...]
Hopefully rich individual or corporate or Government clients will now think twice about employing the services of media vanity lawyers,
like Lavely & Singer in the USA, or Schillings in the UK, who specialise in trying to intimidate the media and individuals, when trying to cover up the scandals of minor celebrities. These lawyers now try to sell themselves as being "internet experts", but they are plainly out of their depth, and actually do more harm than good for their clients.
4. Narrowly Tailored Remedy.[...]
Because the Court is not convinced that the existing permanent injunction is the least restrictive means to achieve Plaintiffs' goals, this additional reason counsels against maintaining the permanent injunction or issuing a preliminary injunction at this time.
The exaggerated claims made by Lavely & Singer, which the Judge initially allowed in the Temporary Restraining Order, were so over broad and catch all. that they could actually have resulted in the client Bank Julius Baer having its own private customer services internet traffic being blocked.
CONCLUSIONFor the above reasons, the Court DISSOLVES the stipulated permanent injunction between Plaintiffs and Dynadot. In addition, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and DECLINES to extend the TRO.
[...]
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 29, 2008
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Judge has seen sense, when presented with the fuller picture, courtesy of the "friends of the Court" briefs by various media and civil liberties groups.
@ eyewitness - do you have any proof to back up your allegations about Lavely & Singer ?