SO YOU THINK YOU HAVE FREE SPEECH HERE ON THE INTERNET…THINK AGAIN AND GIVE THIS A FULL READ!

WIKILEAKS.ORG SHUT DOWN ORDERS: NOW IF THIS KIND OF ACTION DOESN’T DISTURB YOU; THEN NOTHING WILL!

WE MAY WELL HAVE HERE THE FIRST MAJOR TEST OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS IN THE INTERNET ERA.”

JUDGE SHUTS DOWN WEB SITE SPECIALIZING IN LEAKS

http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks

Published: February 20, 2008

In a move that legal experts said could present a major test of First Amendment rights in the Internet era, a federal judge in San Francisco on Friday ordered the disabling of a Web site devoted to disclosing confidential information.

The site, Wikileaks.org, invites people to post leaked materials with the goal of discouraging “unethical behavior” by corporations and governments. It has posted documents said to show the rules of engagement for American troops in Iraq, a military manual for the operation of the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and other evidence of what it has called corporate waste and wrongdoing.

The case in San Francisco was brought by a Cayman Islands bank, Julius Baer Bank and Trust. In court papers, the bank said that “a disgruntled ex-employee who has engaged in a harassment and terror campaign” provided stolen documents to Wikileaks in violation of a confidentiality agreement and banking laws. According to Wikileaks, “the documents allegedly reveal secret Julius Baer trust structures used for asset hiding, money laundering and tax evasion.”

On Friday, Judge Jeffrey S. White of Federal District Court in San Francisco granted a permanent injunction ordering Dynadot , the site’s domain name registrar, to disable the Wikileaks.org domain name. The order had the effect of locking the front door to the site — a largely ineffectual action that kept back doors to the site, and several copies of it, available to sophisticated Web users who knew where to look.

Domain registrars like Dynadot, Register.com and GoDaddy .com provide domain names — the Web addresses users type into browsers — to Web site operators for a monthly fee. Judge White ordered Dynadot to disable the Wikileaks.org address and “lock” it to prevent the organization from transferring the name to another registrar.

The feebleness of the action suggests that the bank, and the judge, did not understand how the domain system works, or how quickly Web communities will move to counter actions they see as hostile to free speech online.

The site itself could still be accessed at its Internet Protocol address (http://88.80.13.160/) — the unique number that specifies a Web site’s location on the Internet. Wikileaks also maintained “mirror sites,” or copies usually produced to ensure against failures and this kind of legal action. Some sites were registered in Belgium (http://wikileaks.be/), Germany (http://wikileaks.de) and the Christmas Islands (http://wikileaks.cx) through domain registrars other than Dynadot, and so were not affected by the injunction.

Fans of the site and its mission rushed to publicize those alternate addresses this week. They have also distributed copies of the bank information on their own sites and via peer-to-peer file sharing networks.

In a separate order, also issued on Friday, Judge White ordered Wikileaks to stop distributing the bank documents. The second order, which the judge called an amended temporary restraining order, did not refer to the permanent injunction but may have been an effort to narrow it.

Lawyers for the bank and Dynadot did not respond to requests for comment. Judge White has scheduled a hearing in the case for Feb. 29.

In a statement on its site, Wikileaks compared Judge White’s orders to ones eventually overturned by the United States Supreme Court in the Pentagon Papers case in 1971. In that case, the federal government sought to enjoin publication by The New York Times and The Washington Post of a secret history of the Vietnam War.

“The Wikileaks injunction is the equivalent of forcing The Times’ printers to print blank pages and its power company to turn off press power,” the site said, referring to the order that sought to disable the entire site.

The site said it was founded by dissidents in China and journalists, mathematicians and computer specialists in the United States, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa. Its goal, it said, is to develop “an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis.”

Judge White’s order disabling the entire site “is clearly not constitutional,” said David Ardia, the director of the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard Law School. “There is no justification under the First Amendment for shutting down an entire Web site.”

The narrower order, forbidding the dissemination of the disputed documents, is a more classic prior restraint on publication. Such orders are disfavored under the First Amendment and almost never survive appellate scrutiny.

Permanent Injunction (pdf)

Temporary Restraining Order (pdf)

Wikileak.org Blog

Citizen Media Law Project

Bits: Wikileaks Site Has a Friend in Sweden

Call To Impeach Judge Who Shut Down Wikileaks.Org

Posted on February 20, 2008
Filed Under Journalism, commentary | Leave a Comment

His name is Jeffrey S. White and he is a judge of the Federal District Court in San Francisco.

This is a call for his impeachment, the only legal way to have a federal judge removed from the bench and sent packing to a retirement home somewhere.

On Friday, soon to be impeached Judge White, granted a permanent injunction shutting down a Web site that discloses confidential information from corporate and government leakers.

The site is Wikileaks.org and, according to the New York Times, it invites people to post leaked materials with the goal of discouraging ‘unethical behavior’ by corporations and governments.”

A Cayman Islands bank sued Dynadot, the site’s domain name registrar, because it claimed a former employee provided stolen documents to Wikileaks “in violation of a confidentiality agreement.”

Wikileaks, says the Times, claims the documents reveal secret trust structures “used for asset hiding, money laundering and tax evasion.”

Wikileaks has also published on its site the documents that reveal the rules of engagement for U.S. troops in Iraq as well as a manual for how the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba should be operated.

Wikileaks says the injunction is similar to when the federal government tried to stop the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing the secret Pentagon Papers in 1971...papers that revealed the secret history of this country’s involvement in Vietnam.

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned that in a historic ruling on prior restraint.

Now, the Internet being the Internet, you can still access all this info by going to the following sites, says the Times:

http://88.80.13.160 (the sites unique IP address) or

http://wikileaks.be/ (Belgium)

http://wikileaks.de (Germany)

and, http://wikileaks.ex (the Christmas Islands)

The idiot judge’s order does not extend outside of the U.S.

The Times says this legal decision “could present a major test of First Amendment rights in the Internet era.”

That is why Judge White ought to be impeached and removed from the federal courthouse as fast as possible–his sort of thinking represents a true threat to American democracy. He is a disgrace to the federal courts.

The Tech HeraldCayman Island Bank Gets Wikileaks Taken Offline in US - Feb 18, 2008

In a pretty extraordinary ex-parte move, the Julius Baer Bank and Trust got Dynadot, the US hosting company for Wikileaks, to agree not only to take down ... Wired News - 255 related articles »

Status:

Pending

Disposition:

Injunction Issued

Verdict or Settlement Amount:

Description:

On February 6, 2008, Julius Baer Bank and Trust Company, a Cayman Islands banking entity, filed suit in federal court in California against Wikileaks, which is developing an "uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis." Two days later, the bank and its Swiss parent companyex parte application for a temporary restraining order seeking to enjoin Wikileaks from publishing or distributing copies of documents the plaintiffs claim contain "stolen or otherwise wrongfully obtained confidential and protected bank files and records." filed and

On February 15, 2008, the court issued what it captioned as an "Order Granting Permanent Injunction." This order, which appears to be the result of a stipulation between the plaintiffs and Dynadot, Wikileaks' domain name registrar and web host, required that Dynadot immediately disable the entire wikileaks.org domain name and account and remove all DNS hosting records.

Later that same day, the court issued an Amended Temporary Restraining Order that drops the requirement that Dynadot disable the entire Wikileaks.org domain. Among other things, the amended order enjoins the defendants from "displaying, posting, publishing, distributing, or linking to . . . all documents and information originating from [the plaintiffs' banks] which are internal non-public company documents and/or which contains private client or customer bank records."

As of February 18, 2008, the Wikileaks.org domain is still down, but the organization issued a press release through one of its mirror sites:

Transparency group Wikileaks forcibly censored at ex-parte Californian hearing -- ordered to print blank pages -- 'wikileaks.org' name forcibly deleted from Californian domain registrar -- the best justice Cayman Islands money launderers can buy?

When the transparency group Wikileaks was censored in China last year, no-one was too surprised. After all, the Chinese government also censors the Paris based Reporters Sans Frontiers and New York Based Human Rights Watch.

And when Wikileaks published the secret censorship lists of Thailand's military Junta, no-one was too surprised when people in that country had to go to extra lengths to read the site.

But on Friday the 15th, February 2008, in the home of the free and the land of the brave, and a constitution which states "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press", the Wikileaks.org press was shutdown.

Update:

The court has scheduled a hearing on the injunction for February 29, 2008 at 9:00AM

« California District Court Injunction against Dynadot, the WikiLeakS.org Domain Registrar | Main

Second Restraining Order against Wikileaks - does this also ban Bank Julius Baer's private customer internet access ?

Why are lawyers so greedy in their legal claims ? Words like "all" or "every" should not be allowed in legal language, without explicit caveats and qualifications, limiting their scope.

Judge Jeffery S.White's approval of the first Restraining Order against WikiLeakS and the Domain Name Registrar Dynadot LLC was bad enough.

His second one, a Proposed Amended Temporary Restraining Order, is even wider in scope and is remarkable for several features, which seem to betray an unfamiliarity and incompetence with the Internet, which is astonishing for someone who works in the internet savvy city of San Francisco.

Hat tip to the Law Librarian Blog Permanent Injunction issued against Wikileaks:

The Citizen Media Law Project has a 10 page .pdf copy of the Second Order made by the judge Hon. Jeffrey S. White against Wikileaks:

Proposed Amended Temporary Restraining Order and Order To Show Cause re. Preliminary Injunction 4405-2\PLE\PROP-ORD-TRO 021408 CV08-0824 JSW (.pdf 10 pages)

N.B. if you are within US Federal Court legal jurisdiction, and if you are actually hosting copies of the alleged documents, rather than simply publishing links to, or pointing sub-domains at, the home page of WikiLeakS.org servers in Sweden, then you may wish to remain legally ignorant and able to deny that you have actually read the text of this Court order. Try using Tor or other means of obscuring your computer's real IP address, before you open the .pdf file link above, or before you continue to read the rest of this blog article.

A minor point first: The Order was signed on Thursday 14th February has immediate effect, and it orders that a copy must be emailed to the Defendants by the following day Friday.

However the previous Order forcing Dynadot to suspend the Domain Name Registration of WikilLeaks.org , also had immediate effect, thereby stopping all emails to legal@wikileaks.org.etc. - how do the lawyers expect an email to be delivered to a no longer active internet domain name ?

The number of innocent people, and the "collateral damage" implied by this list of people and organisations, many of whom are outside of the USA, is huge:

all of the Wikileaks Defendants’ DNS host service providers, ISP’s, domain registrars, website site developers, website operators, website host service providers, and administrative and technical domain contacts, and anyone else responsible or with access to modify the website

[...]

Defendants are to immediately provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with the name, address, telephone number, and facsimile transmission number for all of their DNS hosting services, ISP’s, domain registrars, website site developers, website operators and website host service providers,

Thirdly, and almost comically, the greedy lawyers, instead of being content with just the list of alleged documents relating to the tax evasion, money laundering and, perhaps, some perfectly legal financial activities in the Cayman Islands subsidiary of Bank Julius Baer, they had to, stupidly, include"whether or not such documents and information are authentic, semi-altered, semi-fraudulent or forged,"

How can you possibly claim copyright infringement damage on forged documents ?

This looks like an unintended, but logical consequence:

"internal non-public company documents and/or which contains private client or customer bank records and/or identifies client or customer names, data, account records and/or bank account numbers,"

This could mean the crippling all of Bank Julius Baer's own use of the internet to provide private electronic banking and financial investment advice to their customers over the internet.

The Order does not just cover Wikileaks but also the insiders and whistleblowers inside Bank Julius Baer, who might be tempted to blow the whistle on their internet media inept employers.

Like any modern international financial institution, Bank Julius Baer promotes itself on the world wide web at http://www.juliusbaer.com

Which at first glance should be exempt from the Order, as public internet web server pages, files and images are not usually internal non-public company documents

However even the English language version of their home page contains this bit of HTML source code comments, probably related to the press release news items. However this contains some Javascript source code warnings:

var __wpmExportWarning='This Web Part Page has been personalized. As a result, one or more Web Part properties may contain confidential information. Make sure the properties contain information that is safe for others to read.

 
How is an Internet Service Provider meant to comply with the Order, except by blocking the Bank Julius Baer public website, which may contain confidential  data.

Even worse, like most large financial institutions, Bank Julius Baer operates services via the internet, through which their customers can access their bank accounts, investment portfolios, investment research advice etc. - all of which is not public, but private data or documents, and therefore covered by this Restraining Order.

http://www.gam.com Global Asset Management, based in London
http://www.infidar.ch nfidar Investment Advisory Ltd in Zurich
https://ebaer.juliusbaer.com eBaer ebanking in Switzerland
https://e-jbs.juliusbaer.com .sg e-JBS ebanking in SIngapore
https://e-JBN.juliusbaer.com / e-JBN
http://www.jbfundnet.com Fund offer
http://research.juliusbaer.com JBresearch

This Order also seems to cover the use or abuse of any Bank Julius Baer internet systems e.g. Email or File Transfer or Virtual Private Networks etc. connecting to their Class B IP address allocation from the IP Plus, a subsidiary of Swisscom, the main telecomms company in Switzerland.

inetnum: 159.103.0.0 - 159.103.255.255
netname: BAERNET
descr: Bank Juliusbaer & Co Ltd
country: CH

Any prudent, law abiding Internet Service Provider, or any other Company or Financial Institution, especially those within the legal jurisdiction of the Federal Court in Northern California, i.e. in the entire United States of America, should also block access to and from the internet for these.

Since Bank Julius Baer has offices in Los Angeles and New York, these offices at least should have their internet access blocked, by virtue of this far too widely draughted Order.

The list of files in the Exhibit "A" appendix, which have been culled from the WikilLeakS pages, include the SHA 256 cryptographic secure hash algorithm checksums. These are not mentioned or explained by whoever wrote this Order. If any of the other copies of these alleged documents differ by so much as one single keystroke or space from these particular copies, they will provably have a different SHA 256 checksum, and will be provably not the actual documents specifically mentioned in the Exhibit "A" appendix.

Here is the text of the Permanent Restraining Order, for the benefit of search engine queries:

4405-2\PLE\PROP-ORD-TRO 021408 1 CV08-0824 JSW [PROP] AMENDED TRO & OSC RE PRELIM. INJUNCTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

CASE NO. CV08-0824 JSW
[Hon. Jeffrey S. White]

[PROPOSED] AMENDED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

BANK JULIUS BAER & CO.LTD, a Swiss entity; and JULIUS
BAER BANK AND TRUST CO. LTD, a Cayman Islands entity,

Plaintiffs,
v.

WIKILEAKS, an entity of unknown form, WIKILEAKS.ORG, an entity of unknown form; DYNADOT, LLC, a California limited liability corporation, and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive,

Defendants.

TO DEFENDANTS WIKILEAKS, WIKILEAKS.ORG, DYNADOT, LLC, AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

This matter having come before the Court on Plaintiffs BANK JULIUS BAER & CO. LTD’s and JULIUS BAER BANK AND TRUST CO. LTD’s (collectively herein,“Julius Baer” and/or “Plaintiffs”) ex parte application for temporary restraining order and order to show cause re preliminary injunction (“Application”) against Defendants WIKILEAKS, WIKILEAKS.ORG, DYNADOT, LLC and DOES 1-10;

And, the Court having considered the Complaint, the declarations and memorandum of points and authorities presented by Plaintiffs in support of the Application, and any other papers, evidence or arguments presented by the parties in connection with Plaintiffs’ Application;

And, the Court having found that good cause exists therefor, and Plaintiffs having shown that immediate harm will result to Plaintiffs in the absence of the requested relief,

What "immediate harm" exactly ?

The names of the alleged tax avoiders and money launderers are published as the file names of the disputed documents in this very Order. The world's tax and financial regulation authorities already have copies of these documents.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. DEFENDANTS WIKILEAKS and WIKILEAKS.ORG and DOES 1-10 (collectively the “Wikileaks Defendants”), and all of their respective officers, directors, stockholders, owners, registrants, web host providers, DNS hosts, service providers, website site developers, website operators, website server providers, agents, servants, employees, representatives and attorneys, and all those in active concert or participation with the Wikileaks Defendants, and each of them, and all others who receive notice of this order, are, pending hearing on this Court’s below-issued Order to Show Cause, hereby ordered, enjoined and restrained as follows:

(a) RESTRAINED and ENJOINED from displaying, posting, publishing, distributing, linking to and/or otherwise providing any information for the access or other dissemination of copies of and/or images of the JB Property (as defined herein below) and any information or data contained therein, including on the websites operated at wikileaks.org, wikileaks.org.au, wikileaks.org.uk, wikileaks.la, wikileaks.cn, wikileaks.in, wikileaks.org.nz (collectively the “Wikileaks Websites”), and any other websites under their ownership, control and/or which they can post or edit any content;

All of these Domain Names sem to use EasyDs.net, based in Oregon, USA., apart from wikileaks.cn, which seems to have been hijacked by the Chinese authorities.

(b) RESTRAINED and ENJOINED from any current and any further use, display, post, publication, distribution, linking to and/or otherwise providing any information for the access or other dissemination of copies of and/or images of the JB Property and any information or data contained therein, including on the Wikileaks websites and any other websites under their ownership, control and/or which they can post or edit any content;

That last bit is, far, far too broad - it encompasses terns of millions of public blog comment form sor bulletin board discussion fora, or Usenet newsgroup, or email list etc. etc. most of which have web site interfaces or archives, over the entire Internet.

Note the abuse of the words "any other websites" and "any content" without any caveat or qualification whatsoever.

(c) ORDERED to immediately block and otherwise prevent any current and any further use, display, posting, publication, distribution, linking to and/or other dissemination of copies of and/or images of the JB Property and any other new or additional yet unpublished documents and data that constitute or could reasonably be known to be or considered to constitute JB Property, pending further order of this Court;

Astonishingly this is prior restraint of documents or data which does not yet exist !

(d) ORDERED to immediately remove from their Wikileaks Websites, including but not limited to wikileaks.org website, and any other websites owned or operated by the Wikileaks Defendants or within their control, any and all copies of and/or images of the JB Property and any information or data contained therein;

"any and all copies" , "any information or data"

(e) ORDERED to immediately give notice of this Order to all of the Wikileaks Defendants’ DNS host service providers, ISP’s, domain registrars, website site developers, website operators, website host service providers, and administrative and technical domain contacts, and anyone else responsible or with access to modify the website, and that they are to cease and desist from any current and any further use, display, posting, publication, distribution, linking to and/or other dissemination of copies of and/or images of the JB Property and any information contained therein pending further order of this Court;

(f) ORDERED to submit proof to the Court, under penalty of perjury, that all JB Property has been removed from the Wikileaks Websites and any and all links or information for access thereof;

(g) ORDERED that the Wikileaks Defendants are to immediately provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with the name, address, telephone number, and facsimile transmission number for all of their DNS hosting services, ISP’s, domain registrars, website site developers, website operators and website host service providers, so Plaintiffs can provide such persons/entities with notice of this Order at Plaintiffs’ election.

The contact details of ISPs and domain registrars are easily available to the whole public - why should the defendants have to have to do this ?

This looks like a fishing expedition for the personal details of the core WikiLeaks.org personnel.

Who believes that such private personal and commercially confidential details would not be abused by Bank Julius Baer and its shyster lawyers Lavely & Singer ?

2. "JB Property" Defined: JB Property includes any and all documents and information originating from Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd’s and Julius Baer Bank and Trust Co. Ltd’s banks and affiliated bank branches, which are internal non- public company documents and/or which contains private client or customer bank records and/or identifies client or customer names, data, account records and/or bank account numbers, whether or not such documents and information are authentic, semi-altered, semi-fraudulent or forged, and which appears to have originated from or could reasonably be known to be or considered to constitute or have originated from data and documents stolen or misappropriated from one or more of Plaintiff’s bank branches and/or computers. For example, but is not limited to, the JB Property posted on or made available through the Wikileaks Websites that is subject to this Order and enjoined from further use, display, post, publication, distribution, linking to and/or other dissemination, is listed and set forth on the attached Exhibit “A”.

internal non-public company documents and/or which contains private client or customer bank records and/or identifies client or customer names, data, account records and/or bank account numbers,

This could have the probably unintended consequence of crippling all of Bank Julius Baer's use of the internet to provide private electronic banking and financial investment advice to their customers over the internet.

"whether or not such documents and information are authentic, semi-altered, semi-fraudulent or forged,"

How can you possibly claim copyright infringement damage on forged documents ?

How is anybody outside of the Bank Julius Baer, or the even employees within it, meant to know whether something has been altered or is a forgery ?

All Internet Service Providers and Domain Name Registrars etc. are going to have to assume that anything labelled Bank Julius Baer, and that every sort of internet traffic to or from their allocated IP address ranges, could fall into this stupid, over broad, definition, and that they should therefore block it all, if they are within United States legal jurisdiction.

Have the Bank Julius Baer plaintiffs been hoist by their own litigious petard ?

3. Defendants are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE and to appear before this Court in Courtroom 2 (17th Floor), located at 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, California 94102, at 9.00 am., or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard on February 29 2008, then and there to show cause (the "OSC Hearing"), if any, that the Wikileaks Defendants, and each of them, and their respective officers, directors, stockholders, owners, subsidiaries, agents, servants, employees and attorneys and all those in active concert or participation with the Wikileaks Defendants or them, and each of them, while pending the determination of this action and further Order of this Court, why a preliminary injunction should not issue continuing the above Temporary Restraining Order.

Apart from some pro bono attorneys, WikiLeakS.org does not have any "respective officers, directors, stockholders, owners, subsidiaries, agents, servants, employees", although Dynadot LLC must have.

"all those in active concert or participation with the Wikileaks Defendants" cannot include everyone who simply links to the WikiLeakS.org wiki Cover Name URLs, but it might apply to those who actively mirror copies of the disputed documents themselves.

EFFECTIVE DATE/TIME

The above Temporary Restraining Order is effective immediately upon issuance; and Plaintiffs’ are ordered to file an undertaking within five-business days in the sum of $ 0 Dollars.

Why are these malicious prosecution SLAPPers not having to pay any sort of bond into the Court ?

SERVICE OF PROCESS

A copy of this Order shall be served upon the Defendants via email by not later than February 15 2008

This standard Court procedure was obviously never designed for a case where the Defendant's email addresses @wikileaks.org have just been disabled by the previous Court Order with immediate effect.

Disabling the wikileaks.org domain name affects more than just the web servers and wiki, it also instantly cripples the email system.

Surely this alone should be grounds for an Appeal to a higher Court ?

Any Opposition papers shall be served and filed by 12:00 p.m. on February 20 2008, and any Reply papers shall be filed and served via any of the same listed means by 12:00 pm on February 26 2008

Will the WikiLeakS.org lawyers actually manage to do this , possibly electronically ?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15 2008 _

HON. JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

EXHIBIT “A”

The following is an identifying list of certain of the JB Property which was posted on or made available through the wikileaks.org website and which is subject to the Court’s Order and enjoined from further use, display, post, publication distribution, linking to and/or other dissemination:

1.)
Document title: BJB_-_Roberto_de_Andrade-_Gaynor_Jaguar_Angel_Yara_Trusts
URL Link: http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/ BJB__Roberto_de_Andrade_-_Gaynor_Jaguar_Angel_Yara_Trusts
File Name: bjb-andrade.zip
Wikileaks File SHA256
Identity No: 39010e85348a18b7cd091d3dc7b94ffdea076203a08df0d93822a486416b2e3e
Wikileaks 2008-01-18
Release Date:

2.)
Document title: BJB_-_Luis_Nozaleda_-_Blanca_R_avena_-_Madrid_-_USD_18_mil
URL Link: http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/ BJB_-_Luis_Nozaleda_-_Blanca_R_avena _-_Madrid_-_USD_18_mil
File Name: bjb-luis-avenvas.zip
Wikileaks File SHA256
Identity No: eac16b8eb17f21e6cfa496dff61aea1d11bd223739e6f093fb9411df4603cb51
Wikileaks 2008-01-18
Release Date:

3.)
Document title: BJB_-_Juan_Carlos_Cespedes_-_SF_holdings_-_11_mil
URL Link: http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/BJB _-_Juan_Carlos_Cespedes_-_SF_holdings_-_11_mil
File Name: bjb-peru.zip
Wikileaks File SHA256
Identity No: ffac47f723724cf36a1f8a015ea81648e70806225fce5af0c182fde6c3480a71
Wikileaks 2008-01-18
Release Date:

4.)
Document title: BJB_-_Mr._Lewis_-_George_Charles_Lampitt_-_tax_avoidence_-_Caym an_-_5_mil
URL Link: http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/BJB _-_Mr._Lewis_-_George_Charles_La mpitt_-_tax_avoidence_-_Cayman_-_5_mil
File Name: bjb-lewis2.zip
Wikileaks File SHA256
Identity No: cccdc8fd8e24721470f28b3f25f89a69bbf85999dff354cabeb87571bfe5d4e3
Wikileaks 2008-01-17
Release Date:

5.)
Document title: BJB_-_Mr._Lewis_-_George_Charles_Lampitt_-_confusion_of_beneficiary
URL Link: http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/BJB _-_Mr._Lewis_-_George_Charles_La mpitt_-_confusion_of_beneficiary
File Name: bjb-lewis1.zip
Wikileaks File SHA256
Identity No: e41b7eada762d35555b0493e1fe36235cf3f97d06382479d233140e212f0570c
Wikileaks 2008-01-17
Release Date:

6.)
Document title: BJB_-_Heinri_Steinberger,_Frankfurt_Steuerbetrug_EUR_15_mil
URL Link: http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/BJB _-_Heinri_Steinberger,_Frankfurt_Steuerbetrug_EUR_15_mil
File Name: bjb-heinri-steinberger.zip
Wikileaks File SHA256
Identity No: 51dbed21a2072f3e68c6093c2e08a7e506d0136fba82209eb230dabe32bc51e0
Wikileaks 2008-01-13
Release Date:

7.)
Document title: BJB_-_Vigier_Fintex_-_tax_evasion_Cayman
URL Link: http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/BJB _-_Vigier_Fintex_-_tax_evasion_Cayman
File Name: schwarze-kasse.zip
Wikileaks File SHA256
Identity No: 2409a1953291e9eeec33af0cc949688bf44b3007e2ee77e4ab13496b3b6fb5
Wikileaks 2008-01-09
Release Date:

8.)
Document title: BJB_-_JK_Peng_-_Dragon_Trust_-_Cayman_hidden_money
URL Link: http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/BJB _-_JK_Peng_-_Dragon_Trust_-_Cayman_hidden_money
File Name: jk-peng.zip
Wikileaks File SHA256
Identit No: f571984e852292cd3cdff4eba2c0a8e4684045440a28fd6dfd700a20f6f4e9b9
Wikileaks 2008-01-09
Release Date:

9.)
Document title: BJB_-_Swisspartner_Offshore_Tax_Scheme_-_USD_150_mil
URL Link: http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/BJB _-_Swisspartner_Offshore_Tax_Scheme_-_USD_150_mil
File Name: bjb-swisspartner-tax-scheme.xls
Wikileaks File SHA256
Identity No: c678a68c006f27651c363ae55c133cfcd3127f99bcea12a4212a63178719df41
Wikileaks 2008-01-13
Release Date:

10.)
Document title: BJB_-_Greek_shipowners_Anna_Kanellakis_Alpha_Tankers_-_USD_30_mil_per_year
URL Link: http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/BJB _-_Greek_shipowners_Anna_Kanellakis_Alpha_Tankers_-_USD_30_mil_per_year
File Name: bjb-alpha-tankers.zip
Wikileaks File SHA256
Identity No: 375ebe8f8249c23a32290c6a424680df39f677707d5a449927f15f5a34c6408c
Wikileaks 2008-01-13
Release Date:

11.)
Document title: BJB_-_Steuerbetrug_Juergen_Grossmann_Architekt_-_EUR_25_mil
URL Link: http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/BJB _-_Steuerbetrug_Juergen_Grossmann_Architekt_-_EUR_25_mil
File Name: bjb-juergen-grossmann.zip
Wikileaks File SHA256
Identity No: bee41d33756939188dfccbaf5eb824b218225f55ebf91067150d4362b5f306dc
Wikileaks 2008-01-13
Release Date:

12.)
Document title: BJB_-_Winston_Layne,_New_York_-_USD_10_mil_tax_fraud
URL Link: http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/BJB_-_Winston_Layne,_New_York_-_USD_10_mil_tax_fraud
File Name: bjb-winston-layne.zip
Wikileaks File SHA256
Identity No: bac726339b1423535ac0bb6336312669d139230e3b089e3533204fc185e7713
Wikileaks 2008-01-13
Release Date:

13.)
Document title: BJB_-_Lord_L._Kadoorie_-_China_Light_and_Power
URL Link: http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/BJB _-_Lord_L._Kadoorie_-_China_Light_and_Power
File Name: bjb-lord-kadoorie.zip
Wikileaks File SHA256
Identity No: 59cc8c9575a07e1928bc4117059d6e74be404c75b666c9dbbdf2c094e45f1c69
Wikileaks 2008-01-13
Release Date:

14.)
Document title: Julius_Baer_to_Angela_Merkel
Description: Forged Letter to Angela Merkel from Bank Julius Baer, dated 12 Sept 2007
URL Link: http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/ Julius_Baer_to_Angela_Merkel
File Name: angela-merkel.pdf
Wikileaks File SHA256
Identity No: 5f201de05f3d8eb32c0a961402be4324b05cea803d58382c0ca814e85dee34ab
Wikileaks 2007-11-26
Release Date:

4405-2\PLE\PROP-ORD-TRO 012908

EXHIBIT "A" [PROP] TRO & OSC RE PRELIM. INJ.

Posted by WikiLeak on February 19, 2008 10:04 PM | Permalink