Bret and all my friends, Yes unfortunately you were. As I stated in a earlier post, the ENTIRE web site did not need to be takend down as a much more narrow remedy was avaliable, that being only removing the confidential financial information and/or link. However this has been an ongoing saga with "Wiki's", Wikipedia and now Wikileaks.org. Seems the name or dirivitive of same, "Wiki" is for a very long time in the future, damaged goods unfortunately... Bret Fausett wrote:
I may have been wrong. More here: http://www.discourse.net/archives/2008/02/wikileaks_case_dynadot_says_dont_b...
-- Bret
On Feb 21, 2008, at 10:55 AM, Bret Fausett wrote:
My understanding of the Wikileaks issue, based on reviewing some of the pleadings, is that the Order requiring the registrar to take down the DNS records was negotiated between the plaintiff and the defendant registrar, Dynadot. The two of them stipulated to this result, and then simply presented a pre-agreed order to the judge to be approved and signed. If plaintiff and defendant stipulate to something, the stipulations usually are signed without much judicial review.
-- Bret
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827