Whistleblowing Site Shut Down

Ordered offline by CA court

Get the WebProNews Newsletter:

[ Business]

The whistleblowing site Wikileaks.org has been taken offline by the order of a California court.

Dynadot, which controls the sites domain name was ordered by the court to," immediately clear and remove all DNS hosting records for the wikileaks.org domain name and prevent the domain name from resolving to the wikileaks.org website or any other website or server other than a blank park page, until further order of this Court."

The case was brought by lawyers representing the Swiss banking group Julius Baer. It involved a number of documents posted on the site that allegedly disclosed that the bank was connected to money laundering and tax evasion. The bank maintains the documents were posted to the site by the former vice president of its Cayman Island’s operations, Rudolf Elmer.

Julius Baer requested the documents to be taken down because they could affect the outcome of a  separate legal case in Switzerland. A document signed by Judge Jeffery White,ordered Dynadot to follow six court orders. The company was ordered to remove all records of the site from its servers and to produce,"all prior or previous administrative and account records and data for the wikileaks.org domain name and account."

The court also ordered that details of the site’s registrant, contacts, payment records and "IP addresses and associated data used by any person who accessed the account for the domain name" to be turned over.

Whistleblowing Site Shut Down
Top Rated White Papers and Resources
  • http://www.quenet.org/ SEO Canada

    I’m surprised they ruled in favor of taking the site down all together instead of just pulling the offending material.  But hey at least the Google cache is still viewable, maybe that lawsuit is coming next…

  • Patrick O’Brien

    WTF?  Did someone revoke the First Amendment and not tell me?!  Since when can a judge shut down an entire website because one litigant sues over certain documents posted on that website?  I hope the Ninth Circuit reverses this with stunning alacrity.

  • Guest

    hahah I wanna see them take down Google. That would be something worth wathing for. :)

  • http://bitchslappin.net bj

    IF the Court, in this case, worked as ** fast ** as they usually do, then there are copies of these docs, both hard and soft, all over the place.

    I’m shocked the whole website was taken down. This is a bad precedent. I agree with Patrick O’Brien.

  • http://www.jaankanellis.com JaanKanellis

    Just another sad day in American law where judges dont know exactly how the web works and simplies throw a blanket solution over the issue.

  • Guest

    These guys need to talk to the folks over at The Pirate Bay

    • Guest

      These guys ARE the folks over at The Pirate Bay.

  • http://www.pc-chaperone.com KevinW

    Do they plan to go after the waybackmachine to?

    • Scott

      Try their IP address, or their Belgian mirror, or their Laos mirror, or their Christmas Island mirror, or any of a couple dozen other addresses.

      I really don’t see what Bank Julius Baer thought it would achieve, here…

  • Guest

    Dynadot agreed to this – quite probably in return for a promise by the scummy lawyers for BJB that they’d be left out of the litigation if they did.

    The court order only implements the terms negotiated between Dynadot and BJB.

    (That fact doesn’t absolve Judge Jeffery White for abdicating his duties in any way, IMHO – most certainly he must be removed from the bench for allowing this.)

  • http://www.rankbetterseo.com/Website-Design-Portfolio.php Law Firm Website Design

    This is a crazy ruling. They have to be very careful when ruling on web related issues without thinking through the ramifications of future cases.

  • Join for Access to Our Exclusive Web Tools
  • Sidebar Top
  • Sidebar Middle
  • Sign Up For The Free Newsletter
  • Sidebar Bottom