From Wikileaks

Wikileaks would like to thank the following 18 steadfast supporters of the First Amendment who have filed in support of Wikileaks and against the claims of the Cayman Islands branch of Swiss bank Bank Julius Baer and their lawyers, Lavely & Singer. Please give these organizations your support!

Any other individuals or organizations wishing to join the case please contact one of the lead amicus organizations listed (preferred), legal@wikileaks.org or just file with the court.

Tweleve media organisations have filed a joint Amici Curiae ("friends of the Court") brief:

1. Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press (RCFP)
2. The American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE)
3. The Associated Press - (AP) world wide news agency, based in New York
4. Citizen Media Law Project
5. The E.W Scripps Company - newspapers, TV, cable TV etc.
6. Gannet Co. Inc - the largest publisher of newspapers in the USA, including USA Today
7. The Hearst Corporation - media conglomerate which publishes the San Francisco Chronicle
8. The Los Ageles Times
9. National Newspaper Association (NNA)
10. Newspaper Association of America (NAA)
11. The Radio-Television News Directors Association (RTNDA)
12. The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) - also provided some legal funding

See Brief of Amici Curiae (Media Coalition) (02-26-2008) (.pdf, 17 pages)

These following two groups have also filed a brief:
13. Public Citizen - founded by Ralph Nader
14. California First Amendment Coalition (CFAC)

See Public Citizen / CFAC brief (.pdf 13 pages)

These organisations have also filed their own Motion to Intervene as well:

15. The Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF)
16. the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
17. The Project on Government Oversight (POGO)
18. Jordan McCorckle, an individual at the University of Texas and user of WikiLeaks.org

See Motion to Intervene and Supporting Memorandum (.pdf 15 pages)

Did the Hollywood media celebrity lawyers Lavely & Singer warn their clients Bank Julius Baer & Trust that their meddling with US First Amendment rights would result in so much expert legal opposition? Or did Lavely & Singer act in their own interests and against their clients interests by seeking to provoke Wikileaks inorder to get a bit of free publicity for their "we sue journalists" law firm? It is time BJB read up on the McLibel case before Lavely & Singer, who have already cost BJB tens or hundreds of millions in bad press and possibily delayed its US IPO, destroy BJB's name completely.

[thanks to wikileak.org for research]