Bank Julius Baer vs. Wikileaks lawsuit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Wikileaks. (Discuss)

The Bank Julius Baer vs. Wikileaks lawsuit was filed by Bank Julius Baer against the website Wikileaks.

In early February 2008, attorneys for the bank won an injunction that forced Dynadot, the domain registrar of Wikileaks.org, to disassociate the site's domain name records with its servers, preventing use of the domain name to reach the site.

The bank's actions roused media and cyber-liberties groups to defend Wikileak's rights under the First Amendment and brought renewed scrutiny to the documents the bank hoped to shield.

The judge lifted the injunction and the bank dropped the case on March 5, 2008.^[1]

Contents 1 Background 2 Legal action, injunction 3 Negative publicity for bank 4 Injuction lifted, case dropped 5 References

[edit] Background

In 2002, the bank learned private records pertaining to the Cayman Islands unit from 1997 to 2002 had been leaked. They interviewed the local employees with a polygraph as per company policy. The bank was unsatisfied with the answers of Cayman unit COO Rudolf Elmer, and terminated his employment. In June 2005, the leak was reported by the Swiss financial weekly Cash and the Wall Street Journal, though details of individual accounts were not reported on.^[2] In December 2007, Elmer released documents related to Wikileaks regarding surveillance of him and his family. The next month, some of the leaked account data began appearing on Wikileaks. Contributors to wikileaks allege that these provide evidence of asset hiding, money laundering and tax evasion. Ten account holders in the United States, Spain, Peru, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, and Switzerland have been identified so far on Wikileaks.^{[citation needed]}

According to Daniel Schmitt's analysis for Wikileaks, leaked account data exists from after the date that Elmer left the Caymans.^[3]

[edit] Legal action, injunction

In January, Bank Julius Baer began sending cease & desist letters to Wikileaks and its domain registrar, Dynadot, for the wikileaks.org domain name, citing the DMCA.^[4][5] On February 18, 2008, Judge Jeffrey White of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a permanent injunction against Dynadot forcing it to "lock the wikileaks.org domain name".^[6] Mirror sites, such as http://wikileaks.be , were not affected.^[7][8] The text of the posted injunction stated that "immediate harm will result to Plaintiffs in the absence of injunctive relief", as is required for injunctions to be granted. The general assumption is that some leaked documents were alleged by the bank to be libellous, trade secrets, copyrighted, or otherwise prohibited for distribution, in a manner that would cause harm to it.

Wikileaks had not sent a representative to the hearing at which the injunction was granted. [1] According to an editorial on the Wikileaks website, Julius Baer had some communication with Wikileaks before going to court to get the injunction, but did not inform Wikileaks in which city it would seek the injunction and did not present to the court these email communications. [2] The law firm representing Baer works primarily in the entertainment industry in Los Angeles. They applied for and got the injunction at a court in San Francisco - 450 miles (700 km) from Los Angeles.

[edit] Negative publicity for bank

The Julius Baer lawsuit drew a great deal more negative attention than would the leaks alone. The term Streisand Effect refers to drawing more attention to embarrassing information by attempting to suppress that information. Julius Baer had already got an injunction against Wikileaks prohibiting Wikileaks from circulating the documents that Julius Baer wanted to suppress [3] without attracting significant attention from news media, i.e. no Streisand Effect. But then Julius Baer drew a huge amount of attention to itself by seeking and getting a second injunction imposing a measure that would suppress not only the information that Julius Baer considered embarrassing, but also the entire Wikileaks website consisting of all manner of documents presented as evidence of all manner of crimes - both in corporations and in governments, including human rights abuses - by many alleged criminals worldwide in cases having nothing to do with Julius Baer. For example, the site has given exposure to evidence of human rights abuses in China and political corruption in Kenya. [4][5] The Wikileaks website claims to have 1.2 million documents that users have posted anonymously to provide evidence of incidents of wrongdoing that deserve public scrutiny [6]. Only 14 of these documents were pertinent to the Julius Baer case. [7]

After the injunction was initially granted, it was successfully challenged in a joint action by the following intervenors [8] [9] [10] :
the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
the Project on Government Oversight (POGO)
Jordan McCorkle

A similar brief was filed by [11] [12] :
Public Citizen - founded by Ralph Nader
California First Amendment Coalition (CFAC)

Another brief in support of Wikileaks was filed by [13] [14]:
1. Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press (RCFP)
2. The American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE)
3. The Associated Press - (AP) world wide news agency, based in New York
4. Citizen Media Law Project
5. The E.W Scripps Company - newspapers, TV, cable TV etc.
6. Gannet Co. Inc - the largest publisher of newspapers in the USA, including USA Today
7. The Hearst Corporation - media conglomerate which publishes the San Francisco Chronicle
8. The Los Angeles Times
9. National Newspaper Association (NNA)
10. Newspaper Association of America (NAA)
11. The Radio-Television News Directors Association (RTNDA)
12. The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) - also provided some legal funding

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is stated in terms of establishing the right to propagate information. These legal briefs mentioned legal precedents stating that the First Amendment also establishes the right of citizens to read information. One of the participants in the successful challenge to the injunction was Jordan McCorkle, an ordinary citizen who reads the Wikileaks website regularly.

As well as backfiring in terms of the attention it attracted, the injunction could not be entirely effective in suppressing the website anyway in that the alternate Wikileaks domains were unaffected, and Wikileaks was still available directly by its IP address, 88.80.13.160. To shut down these access methods, it would be necessary to pursue injunctions in the jurisdictions where they are registered, or where the servers reside, which are deliberately scattered to make this difficult.^[9]

The law firm representing Baer was Lavely and Singer. They claimed to be acting, in part, to protect Baer's customers from having information about the customers become public. But one of the documents filed in court by Lavely and Singer identified one of the customers of interest by name as well as giving his street address. [15]

[edit] Injuction lifted, case dropped

Judge White dissolved the injunction^[10] on February 29, 2008 allowing Wikileaks to reclaim its domain name.

The bank dropped the case on March 5, 2008.^[1]

[edit] References