Talk:Full correspondence between Wikileaks and Bank Julius Baer
From WikiLeaks
Contents |
Please Call
> THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO
> WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED,
> CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW AND MAY NOT
> BE PUBLISHED OR DISSEMINATED IN WHOLE OR IN PART. IF THE READER OF THIS
> MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT
> RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU
> ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION OR THE
> TAKING OF ANY ACTION IN RELIANCE ON THE CONTENTS OF THIS COMMUNICATION
> IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN
> ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE LAW OFFICES OF LAVELY & SINGER PROFESSIONAL
> CORPORATION IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE (310-556-3501) OR E-MAIL (REPLY TO
> SENDER'S ADDRESS), AND THEN DESTROY ALL COPIES OF THIS COMMUNICATION AND
> ANY ATTACHED FILES. THANK YOU.
On the one hand, I feel that everyone who reads the article has an ethical obligation to call Lavely & Singer, as requested, and inform them that they have recieved this communication in error. On the other hand, the request to do so is contained within the communication, and "TAKING OF ANY ACTION IN RELIANCE ON THE CONTENTS OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED."
What a dilemma! What pompous assholes! 'Prohibited' by what?
There should really be a regulatory or legal injunction against the issuance of unexplained or baseless legal threats.
- This warning is pretty standard boilerplate for communications via fax or e-mail from attorneys and medical personnel. The intention is to notify "unintended recipients" of the sensitive nature of the communication and, moreover, to reduce the liability of the original sender in case the material is leaked or acted upon by an unauthorized third party. I agree that the wording "STRICTLY PROHIBITED" seems unnecessary and most likely means "unauthorized." In fact some versions of this warning instead use the phrase "unauthorized and may be unlawful."
- It is very likely that this warning is included in the e-mail signature of the person sending the e-mail because he frequently transmits correspondence which "MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED." Harassing the company by phoning them in this case seems an egregious overreaction to an attorney's inclusion of a standard warning in an e-mail.
Typo in title
Full correspondence bewtween Wikileaks and Bank Julius Baer
Before sending legal communication PLEASE run a spell-checker. That response is quite embarassing. 1.0.22.53 23:19, 19 February 2008 (GMT)
- Yes, unfortunately not everyone's first language is english and Wikileaks gets a lot of these sort of nonsense letters.
it's unfortunate that you guys don't proof your work better
Your cause is just, but the typos tend to make you look less than professional. No-one likes to have his or her copy red-penned, but as a former legal secretary I can assure you it's worth the pain. Your correspondence with BJB would support your case better if you and not they were the party with "clean copy."
examples...
"Wikileaks is an international in scope." : Missing word
"Infact ..." : Missing space
"As a organization for justice and the upholding of first amendment rights we are somewhat of a cause celibre amongst lawyers and are able to maintain a pool of high first rate councel to respond to requests, each of which specializes in some juristiction or area of law." : Spelling errors; redundant; pompous
"have asked one of our DCMA counsel to follow up on the DCMA the specific DMCA technicalities you mention which may have been introduced when we went from a single counsel to a pool." ; Missing word?
- Point taken, but wikileaks has limited resources and a number of people who do not have english as their first language
"Tortious" - not "tortuous"
In reading the document, the wort "tortiously" isn't actually a misspelling - it refers to tort, the laws designed to provide people with the right to compensation when they or their legally protected interests have been harmed. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort for a clearer definition). What Mr. Spiegel is insinuating is that the documents in question were gained through filing frivolous lawsuits or the threat to do the same, a claim which is difficult to prove, at best, given the circumstances.
Just thought I'd say that - it might help to clear things up a little.
Ridiculous
The Bank is asking for the address of Wikileaks legal counsel and Wikileaks is refusing to supply it. This makes Wikileaks look very bad. Perhaps the reason Wikileaks was not notified in advance of the recent trial is because Wikileaks refused to supply their legal counsel's address.
- Perhaps. The law firm also failed to make any claims that could be acted upon. They simply stated that somewhere, someplace on the site there was some document that some group made some claim to, and Wikileaks had an obligation to remove it.
- I think Wikileaks was very clear in requesting to know to which documents were in question as to direct the law firm to the correct Wikileaks counsel.
- I think that Wikileaks appears to stall in doing so. The DMCA (not "DCMA"!) law is clear (IIRC, IANAL): Someone making an infringement claim asks for your legal contact (whether or not in a "jurisdiction", which BJB supplied anyway), you give it to them. Any competent U.S. lawyer in the copyright field can handle such an initial notice. Agree that Wikileaks looks frivolous here.
The Best Lawyers that TAX Evasion & Money Laundering Can BUY - www.LavelySinger.com
.... time to spam the SOBs in LA ...
www.LavelySinger.com E-MAIL: espiegel@lavelysinger.com
They are the best lawyers period if you want to go crookeed. They buy off judges and judges make crazy disgusting rulings to please the disgusting vipers that are Lavely and Singer. Alisson Seivers wins Phyrric victories.
Allison Sievers is Vile.