mudslinging and propaganda from both sides.
Wikileaks should step back and report with a critical eye. Evaluate the evidence. The content and wording used in this article undermines its credibility.
To report on governments and corporations and still be respected wikileaks must do so without passion. Journalism is needed, not propaganda. Remember that propaganda is different than public relations.
- You may be correct, but in this case, wikileaks is a party, so I think there may be expectation that it act like one. It’s reportage of the allegations is still critical. 1.0.22.53 23:23, 29 February 2008 (GMT)
In order for Wikileaks to be respected it must try and act truthful. For a fuller set of legal documents and to get a better idea of what is really going on read the following:
http://www.eff.org/cases/bank-julius-baer-co-v-wikileaks
Wikileaks owes Baer’s an apology.
- HAHA, I guess you are mixing something up there. And looks like the Baer owns a little broader apology, not only to wikileaks.
Directors of Julius Baer
According to the website of Julius Baer [1]: on March 18, 2008, the directors of Julius Baer are:
Raymond J. Baer (Chairman) – Chairman of the Board of Directors of Julius Baer Holding Ltd., Zurich, Zollikon
Georges Gagnebin (Vice Chairman) – Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors of Julius Baer Holding Ltd., Zurich, Echandens
Peter Kuepfer (Independent Lead Director) – Management consultant, Zollikon
Paul Embrechts – Professor of mathematics at the Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (ETHZ), Oberrohrdorf
Rolf P. Jetzer – Attorney and partner in the law firm of Niederer Kraft & Frey, Zurich
Gareth Penny – Group Managing Director De Beers SA, London, London
Monika Ribar Baumann – Chief Executive Officer Panalpina Management Ltd., Basle, Binningen
Daniel J. Sauter – Entrepreneur, Zoug
Béatrice Speiser – Practicing Attorney, Basle
Charles Stonehill – Investment Banker, Non-Executive Director, London
and the CEO of Bank Julius Baer is:
Alex W. Widmer
More leaks to come?
Before the injunction disabling the domain name, Baer already had an injunction to prevent Wikileaks from continuing to distribute the 14 documents already leaked. So what did they have to gain by disabling the domain name? It looks like they expected even more embarrassing information to leak..
EDITORIAL
February 28, 2008
Julius Baer Bank & Trust — the Swiss-Cayman “private banking” entity currently attempting to sue Wikileaks before US Federal court Justice Jeffery White in San Francisco, today released a press release onto the Business Wire vanity wire service. The press release was subsequently picked up by Reuters and other wire services.
Wikileaks responds.
Julius Baer Bank & Trust, from here on in, simply referred to as Baer, claimed in relation to Wikileaks:
- “It wasn’t our intention to shut down the Web site”.
This is a lie.
Baer’s requests to the court to do just that are a matter of public record. The only change made by Judge Jeffery White to Baer’s proposed “Wikileaks.org’ takedown order was to cross out the word ‘proposed’! Baer also wrote-for-the-judge a separate order in relation to the documents alone, which was similarly granted. Further, at any time subsequent Baer could have asked the court that its earlier request on the shutdown order be rescinded. It has not done so. While one might be tempted to blame the bank’s Hollywood lawyers Lavely & Singer for running amuck, Baer continues to employ the same law firm. This can only be seen as an endorsement of its conduct.
Baer claimed that:
- “This decision was arrived at only after a month long effort on the part of Julius Baer.. to engage the operators of Wikileaks in a dialogue..”
This is a lie.
Wikileaks responded with grace and speed to every one of Baer’s highly irregular (see below) demands and left communication open. A full record is available as:
The last letter is from Wikileaks. The entire correspondence covers a period of two days. Baer did not submit the correspondence to the court for hearing although it was absolutely central to the issues and Wikileaks was not represented. A clear abuse of process.
Wikileaks is confident about its place in the court of public opinion, but the shadowy Swiss-Cayman “Bank and Trust” Baer, has been allergic to the sun from the very beginning. The first sign of this hyper-sensitivity to light was when its lawyers, Lavely & Singer refused to put their demands in writing — even email — as requested. The second sign was when the same lawyers refused to even identify their client!
Finally Baer’s (as it turned out) lawyers refused to even state what city they would be taking their threatened action in so Wikileaks could arrange representation in that city, instead preferring to abuse process and arrange a hearing where Wikileaks was not represented. But don’t take our word for it — see the submissions to the court by our then pre-litigation council Julie Turner and:
- http://Wikileaks.org/wiki/Full_correspondence_between_Wikileaks_and_Bank_Julius_Baer
- http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Bank_Julius_Baer_vs._Wikileaks
It is Baer who decided to hire Hollywood lawyers Lavely & Singer, who like to describe themselves as “all-around bad cop for stars from Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger to Jim Carrey and Celine Dion.”. It is Baer who stood by these lawyers while they abused process with the assistance of a negligent Judge. It is Baer who has refused to make amends for its misdeeds and it is Baer who is now suffering, and will continue to suffer the consequences.
Baer “has form” in engaging in quasi-criminal conduct not just in relation to offshore banking. Swiss court records reveal Baer hired Zurich-based private detectives Ryffel AG to follow the alleged whistleblower Rudolf Elmer while he took his daughters to primary school. The police apprehended one of the PIs in a car chase. The chase became a matter of public record in a Dec 2007 case in Switzerland — as did Baer’s attempts to bribe the suspected whistleblower into keeping quiet. See:
- http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Rudolf_Elmer_vs._Bank_Julius_Baer
- http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Clouds_on_the_Cayman_tax_heaven (Wikileaks story)
Baer claimed that:
- “The posting of confidential bank records by anonymous sources significantly harms the privacy rights of all individuals.”
This is misrepresentation.
Baer likes to spin the documents as ‘bank records’ and never likes to talk about the dates concerned. The documents are nearly all Microsoft Word files setting up trust arrangements used as anonymizing shell structures. In its court filings, Baer claims to have been aware of the documents release since 2003 and the Swiss media had the documents in 2005. The only relevence these documents have now is that they expose the bank’s ultra-rich clients suspiciously funneling money through Cayman Islands trusts nearly a decade ago.
Wikileaks took a skeptical position on the documents until attacked by the bank. Baer, in attempting to shoot the messenger has only succeeded, spectacularly, in shooting itself.
Wikileaks awaits Baer’s apology.