http://youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_com...s&v=h_FJkbYCkFU

The Barbara Streisand Effect goes into full swing as Fed ruling turns obscure whistleblower site into overnight sensation.

Beyond how often the smallest of nothings, far more frequently than not ,become "an internet sensation of the 30 second sound bite genre, the Implied looney topic of Washington's or the Federal Governments involvement in this, is no more than, the stupidly uninformed, idoitizing, in a perverted meledrama of conspiracy an infected genre's mythical drama queen hollow points.

Facts:

Lawsuit

[i]The lawsuit, brought by a Swiss bank and its Cayman Islands subsidiary against Wikileaks and Dynadot, the San Mateo, Calif., company that is the registrar for the domain name Wikileaks.org

[b]Having absolutrely nnothing to do with washignton or even the American Government, other than the "civil" suit was filed in a Federal Court of jurisdiction.

Core legal issues arr; ( having nothing what so ever to do with the American Government)

The bank, Bank Julius Baer & Co., claimed that Wikileaks had displayed confidential, personally identifiable account information of its customers, as a result of possibly criminal actions by a former employee. Lawyers for the bank on Friday repeatedly told Judge White that Julius Baer clients had a right to keep their account information private and that there was no compelling interest to justify their disclosure. In this way lawyers for the bank set up a conflict between freedom of speech and the right to personal privacy.

Current Status

The temporary order to cut the domain off has been reversed by the same California United States District Judge Jeffrey S. White who issued the original order shutting it down, oddly No one representing the site has come forth yet, only ACLU and others.


The judge and the lawyers also struggled mightily to define Wikileaks, which defines itself as an organization “founded by Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and startup company technologists, from the U.S., Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa.”
Traditional entities, like companies and individuals, have citizenship status that can determine when they are subject to a particular court’s jurisdiction. But what is Wikileaks, which has not been represented by a lawyer throughout these proceedings?

“Whatever this entity is, it has not filed a response,” Judge White observed.

Paul Alan Levy, a lawyer for Public Citizen in Washington, argued that the bank had brought more publicity to the documents on Wikileaks than ever by filing its lawsuit and obtaining the order affecting the site’s domain name. Under such circumstances, Mr. Levy asked the judge, “Should you give them any relief to help them unring the bell?” The question implicitly was whether the victims of public disclosure on the Web have any shot at redress.

After hours of discussion that suggested the judge’s level of concern with reaching the correct outcome, Judge White looked unhappy that he could not think of a way to help the bank customers affected by the release of the documents. But he said that he feared the initial order suspending Wikileaks.org raised serious questions of unjustified prior restraint on free speech, and that in any event, once the documents were online, the court might well be powerless.

“Maybe that’s just the reality of the world that we live in,” Judge White said. “When this genie gets out of the bottle, that’s it.”

THAT IS ALL!!

If it was a Federal judge, it was Washington.

A Judge you say? A federal Judge you say? Thus it WAS Washington you say?

Criminal verse Civil cases, of course, how, stupid we are, not knowing, you could NOT distinguish the huge dissimilarity in the unrelated context when one files a case in a Federal Court BECAUSE no STATE court has the authority of a little thing, mindless anarchist cannot comprehend, called “Jurisdiction. Verses the difference legally involved in Criminal cases, where the state, Federal Government, Washington if you prefer, is involved, like the one where they are prosecuting in Federal courts that not to bright anti-tax anarchist they recently fooled and arrested in up there in La La land.

I realize up there in “Utopia of Anarchy” world, few are able to understand law to begin with, especially the fine distinction of a Civil action between two Non-Government parties, where No one is representing the United States government, other than the Federal Judge, who is only involved because of the issue the complainant as an overseas bank, has no other place where it can seek legal redress, except where the Internet company it has a complained about is incorporated, which, is oddly unbeknownst to you of course, is in the most Liberal Anti-Government Federal Courts in the US, the California 9th District. The fact that you do not understand that has nothing to do with the Government in Washington other than as it relates to the Constitution and Federal and State laws, you have proven indelibly.

Thanks for the meomories.


That is all!!