Bank withdraws lawsuit against Wikileaks but other suits still pending

The Swiss bank Julius Baer & Co yesterday withdrew a lawsuit that it had filed against the whistleblower website Wikileaks before a Californian court over confidential documents that were posted on the website “We have withdrawn our lawsuit because it was unsuccessful but we still maintain that the posted documents were stolen and are forged,” a Julius Baer representative told Reporters Without Borders. He added that the bank had filed other actions against the website that are still pending ----------------------- 03.03 - Judge says whistleblowers' website can reopen Reporters Without Borders welcomes Californian judge Jeffrey White's decision on 29 February to rescind his own order blocking access to Wikileaks, a US-based website that invites whistleblowers to post leaked documents. White recognised that he made a mistake when he ordered site's complete closure on 15 February rather that just the withdrawal of confidential documents that were the subject of a 6 February complaint by the Swiss Bank Julius Baer. The documents referred to activities of the bank's Cayman Islands branch. “This is a good sign for online free expression,” Reporters Without Borders said. “The site's closure was utterly excessive. We are satisfied with the outcome of this case.” --------------------- 21.02 - Concern about judge's decision to close Wikileaks website Reporters Without Borders is astonished by Californian judge Jeffrey White's decision on 15 February to order the temporary closure of Wikileaks (http://wikileaks.be/wiki/Wikileaks), a US-based website that invites people to post leaked documents with the aim of discouraging unethical behaviour. The judge issued his order in a case brought by Swiss bank Julius Baer & Co, which accuses Wikileaks and its hosting company Dynadot of “publishing confidential information.” The documents, involving alleged activities of the bank's Cayman Islands branch, were posted on the site at the start of the month. The case is to be reexamined on 29 February. “This appears to be the first time a US court has decided to close an entire website because of certain documents posted on it,” Reporters Without Borders said. “In his ruling, the judge also asked for the offending documents to be removed. Why wasn't that enough? Wikileaks enables dissidents to post documents regarded as ‘sensitive' in their own country. The Julius Baer case must not be allowed to prevent other key information from being made public.” This was not the first time a court action has been brought against Wikileaks. Schillings, a London-based firm of lawyers and public relations consultants, requested the site's closure last November over a leaked confidential memo about the ailing British bank Northern Rock. Launched in January 2007, Wikileaks defines itself as “a version of Wikipedia that cannot be censored” although it has no direct links with the collaborative online encyclopedia. Using encrypted data and the censorship circumvention software Tor, it allows whistleblowers to post documents anonymously. The reaction of the site's founders and editors to the closure order has been low-key. They simply described it as “unconstitutional” and pledged that Wikileaks would continue to publish document demonstrating the illegal activities of certain banks. When contacted by Reporters Without Borders, a Julius Baer & Co representative declined to make any comment aside from saying the court action was necessary to protect its interests. Download the Court's decision