Subpoenaed · Apr 3, 09:45 AM

A week ago yesterday, I was served a subpoena commanding me to appear for deposition and document production in Rev. Lisa Sykes and Seth Sykes’ $20,000,000 personal injury lawsuit, Sykes v. Bayer (Case No. 3:07-CV-660, Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division). On Monday, March 31, I filed the following Motion to Quash pro se in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. The motion has been assigned to Magistrate Judge James R. Muirhead for consideration; the issuing attorney, Mr. Clifford Shoemaker, has two weeks in which to respond.

Case No. 1:08-mc-00013-JM

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

COMES NOW Kathleen Seidel and moves this court, pursuant to Rule 45(3)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to quash the subpoena issued by Clifford Shoemaker, Esq., on behalf of plaintiffs in the above-captioned case, Sykes v. Bayer, ordering her to appear in Manchester, New Hampshire, for deposition and document production on April 30, 2008. The subpoena is herewith attached as Exhibit A, and the Amended Complaint in Sykes v. Bayer as Exhibit B.

As grounds, Mrs. Seidel states the following:

1. I am a resident of the State of New Hampshire.

2. I am not a party to Sykes v. Bayer, and have had no personal acquaintance or contact with any of the parties to it.

3. I am sole proprietor of the website http://www.neurodiversity.com, a directory and resource for information and opinion on autism, Asperger Syndrome, disability rights, and related subjects.

4. http://www.neurodiversity.com is not a legal entity, an organization or a business; rather, it is an Internet domain name that I own. My website is a one-woman labor of love, creativity, conviction and conscience. My husband, David Seidel, assists me with technical matters. I receive $50-$100/month in commissions from Amazon.com for the sale of autism-related books and other merchandise. Since the site’s inception in 2004, I have received approximately $600 in miscellaneous contributions from autistic adults and parents of autistic children. This minimal income has helped to defray but has not completely covered website operating costs. I have not otherwise been paid by any person or organization for developing or maintaining the website, for writing, or for my political advocacy or charitable work.

5. http://www.neurodiversity.com includes a weblog in which I have published numerous articles and letters to newspapers, academic journals, scientists, clinicians, and policymakers. I have addressed disability-related public policy and research funding, the representation of autism in the popular media, the controversy over the role of vaccines in the causation of autism, the history of vaccine injury litigation, and the ethics of litigation-driven human subjects research and scientific publication by proponents of the hypothesis that autism is a consequence of vaccine injury or mercury poisoning. These articles and letters are copiously documented, and are primarily substantiated by publicly-available sources.

6. http://www.neurodiversity.com features numerous investigative articles in which I have reported on and criticized pediatric medical research in which Rev. Lisa Sykes, Mr. Clifford Shoemaker, and their colleague Dr. Mark Geier are closely involved; their efforts to compel removal of mercury-containing antimicrobials from FDA-approved medical products; and the “judicial advocacy” campaign of which Sykes v. Bayer is a part, through which they and their colleagues seek to assign liability to pharmaceutical manufacturers, government agencies and health care providers for children’s developmental disabilities. A selection of my articles is herewith attached as Exhibit C.

7. The attached Amended Complaint in Sykes v. Bayer alleges that “Minor Child Wesley Sykes, developed severe neurodevelopmental disorders associated with high mercury exposure levels as a result of HypRho-D® exposure in utero, and as a result he has suffered serious permanent injury.” The complaint further alleges negligence, design defect and breach of warranties on the part of the manufacturer of HypRho-D®, Bayer Corporation, and its subsidiaries.

8. On March 26, 2008, I was served the attached subpoena issued on March 24 by Clifford Shoemaker, Esq.. The subpoena fails to identify Mr. Shoemaker as counsel to plaintiffs, and fails to indicate whether it was approved by a judge prior to service. The subpoena was issued barely four hours after I published “The Commerce in Causation” (included in Exhibit C), an article discussing Vaccine Injury Compensation Program cases in which Mr. Shoemaker served as petitioners’ counsel.

9. The subpoena commands production of “all documents pertaining to the setup, financing, running, research, maintaining the website http://www.neurodiversity.com“ – including but not limited to material mentioning the plaintiffs – and the names of all persons “helping, paying or facilitating in any fashion” my endeavors. The subpoena demands bank statements, cancelled checks, donation records, tax returns, Freedom of Information Act requests, LexisNexis® and PACER usage records. The subpoena demands copies of all of my communications concerning any issue which is included on my website, including communications with representatives of the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, advocacy groups, non-governmental organizations, political action groups, profit or non-profit entities, journals, editorial boards, scientific boards, academic boards, medical licensing boards, any “religious groups (Muslim or otherwise), or individuals with religious affiliations,” and any other “concerned individuals.”

10. The subpoena violates my First Amendment right to freedom of religion by demanding information about my religious beliefs.

11. The subpoena violates my Fourth Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure because it is overbroad and general in character.

12. The subpoena is impermissible under Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows discovery of only those matters that are relevant to the subject of the action. None of the information requested in the subpoena can reasonably be anticipated to assist the court in determining the cause of Wesley Sykes’ neurodevelopmental disorders, the truth of the plaintiffs’ factual allegations, or the liability of Bayer Corporation for negligence, design defect, or breach of warranties. The subpoena therefore serves no legitimate evidentiary or investigatory function.

13. The materials and information demanded in the subpoena are subject to the journalist’s privilege. Although I am unaffiliated with a traditional news organization, and am not compensated for my work except to the extent described above, I am a de facto citizen-journalist regularly engaged in the public dissemination of news and information, and the promotion of discourse and advocacy regarding issues of national importance. See Von Bulow v. Von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136 (“[A]n individual successfully may assert the journalist’s privilege if he is involved in activities traditionally associated with the gathering and dissemination of news, even though he may not ordinarily be a member of the institutionalized press.”). As such, I am entitled to maintain the confidentiality of my work product and information sources.

14. The courts require civil litigants seeking to compel testimony from journalists to demonstrate that the information sought goes to “the heart of the matter” and is “crucial to [the plaintiffs’] case.” Zerilli v. Smith, 656 F.2d 705, 713 (citation omitted); see also Grunseth v. Marriott Corp., 868 F. Supp. 333, 335 (D.D.C. 1994), aff’d 79 F.3d 169 (barring disclosure where the information sought is not “essential to establish liability”). The information demanded by the plaintiffs serves no such purpose, and no compelling public interest militates its disclosure. This is a personal injury lawsuit, not a criminal prosecution. See Zerilli, supra at 712 (“[I]n the ordinary case the civil litigant’s interest in disclosure should yield to the journalist’s privilege.”).

15. Even if the subpoena were not unconstitutional, illegal and barred by the journalist’s privilege, it is excessively intrusive in its terms. Plaintiffs and their counsel seek not only to rummage through records that they suspect pertain to themselves, but also through my family’s bank records, tax returns, autism-related medical and educational records, and every communication concerning all of the issues to which I have devoted my attention and energy in recent years. I have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to this material. It would be wholly inappropriate for the court to compel me, a nonparty to this civil action, to subject myself, my family, friends and acquaintances to the hostile scrutiny of plaintiffs in order to enable them to argue some point that would not even help to prove their case.

16. Even if the subpoena were not unconstitutional, illegal, barred by the journalist’s privilege, and needlessly invasive, my appearance on April 30 would be unduly burdensome due to previously scheduled family commitments. Further, the subpoena lacks any indication that I would be reimbursed for my time or for the costs of compliance, including the potentially considerable costs of retaining counsel.

17. The subpoena was not issued in good faith because its manifest purpose is not to elicit information relevant to determining Bayer’s liability for Wesley Sykes’ medical and developmental problems, but to indulge his parents’ and their attorney’s curiosity about my motivations and associations; to aggressively communicate their suspicion that I am not merely a fellow citizen who openly, intelligently and conscientiously disagrees with their public statements and actions, but a covert agent of the government, the pharmaceutical industry, or some other hidden force; to disrupt my relationships with my associates and news sources; and to intimidate, harass and retaliate against me for exercising my constitutional right to report and express opinions about matters of widespread public interest in which plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ counsel are involved. These are not legitimate reasons to invoke the judicial subpoena power. Indeed, in so doing, Mr. Shoemaker has engaged in a sanctionable abuse of his authority as an officer of the court.

WHEREFORE, Kathleen Seidel prays her motion to quash this unconstitutional, unreasonable, irrelevant, excessive, invasive, burdensome, frivolous, and clearly retaliatory subpoena be ALLOWED.

Respectfully submitted this 31st day of March, 2008.

KATHLEEN SEIDEL

Exhibit A: Subpoena

Exhibit B: Amended Complaint

Exhibit C: Selected articles by Kathleen Seidel published on http://www.neurodiversity.com
Autism & Lupron: Playing With Fire (February 19, 2006)
An Elusive Institute (June 20, 2006)
A Dubious Diagnosis (June 25, 2006)
On Questionable Terms (June 29, 2006)
Testimony of the Faithful (July 12, 2006)
Letter to Autoimmunity Reviews (November 17, 2006)
A Silent Withdrawal (January 23, 2007)
A Plaintiff in the Pulpit (April 12, 2007)
Letter to Neuroendocrinology Letters (May 1, 2007)
The Expert’s Blind Editorial Eye (October 9, 2007)
The Autism-Vaccine Courtroom Knockout Team (January 23, 2007)
Sykes Saga Continues (February 18, 2008)
The Commerce in Causation (March 24, 2008)

Comments


  1. Unreal. I’m speechless…

    — jypsy    Apr 3, 09:58 AM    #

  2. I am just glad you know enough to handle this properly.

    — Suzanne    Apr 3, 10:20 AM    #

  3. “religious groups (Muslim or otherwise), or individuals with religious affiliations,”

    If you ever wondered what the phrase “racist or bigoted innuendo” means, that’s a perfect example right there. What in the world does Islam have to do with either vaccine injury or autism?

    I don’t know much about the law, but your response seems top-notch to me, Kathleen.

    — Joseph    Apr 3, 10:28 AM    #

  4. Well, it’s my personal best, which will have to do for now. Unlike Rev. and Mr. Sykes — and contrary to their apparent suspicions — I don’t have a legal team at my beck and call.

    — Kathleen Seidel    Apr 3, 10:48 AM    #

  5. The subpoena is quite interesting, particularly paragraph 5, where there is an extensive list of individuals/organizations they demand communication from/with. While the list of who they are particularly interested in is interesting, it is very interesting who is not on the list. Individuals such as Orac, Prometheus, Kristina Chew, Steve Novella, (or me, but I may not be well known enough) are not mentioned. They certainly would be included in the category of “concerned individuals”.

    What rate of hourly compensation will they provide for this extensive amount of work?

    Because much of the communication you have received was received under confidence, what non-disclosure agreement did they propose to prevent their unauthorized disclosure of those confidential communications?

    I appreciate that those are rhetorical questions because it is obvious to me (as someone with Asperger’s), that this is meant to punish, intimidate and to quash debate, not to generate information reasonably likely to be relevant to the legal case.

    I suspect the individuals listed in paragraph 5 were listed so as to punish, intimidate and to quash debate from them as well. Most of them are bloggers writing about their own experiences and have no even remote connection to the Sykes legal case.

    I expect this will be picked up by the blogosphere in a very large way.

    Along the lines of the “I am Spartacus” meme I have started to to sign my messages as “I am Kathleen”? So they know that when they attack one of us they attack all of us?

    — I am Kathleen    Apr 3, 11:01 AM    #

  6. A SLAPP by any other name would smell as foul…

    -

    (For those who don’t know: SLAPP = Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation):
    Anti-SLAPP Resource Center
    EFF: Legal Guide for Bloggers

    — dkmnow    Apr 3, 11:41 AM    #

  7. I’m with jypsy. Unreal.

    Oh, wait, I probably shouldn’t be posting here since I’m listed in the subpoena. Crap.

    Never mind….

    — Brett    Apr 3, 11:42 AM    #

  8. Kathleen, you should file a motion requesting sanctions, too. Courts often impose monetary sanctions to punish people who file such obviously groundless and abusive garbage.

    I’m speechless at the extent of Shoemaker’s chutzpah.

    — abfh    Apr 3, 01:16 PM    #

  9. Unreal it certainly is. What on earth are they trying to do?

    And thank the gods that you are of a legal persuasion mind-wise if not study wise. That looks like a very lawyerly quash request to me.

    — Alyric    Apr 3, 01:29 PM    #

  10. Yikes! I’m listed in para 5 too. Unreal. Let me know if you need assistance.

    — I am Kathleen II    Apr 3, 02:48 PM    #

  11. This is a sign that the Mercury Militia is definitely rattled. And the way they respond: they have no science on their side, so they resort to intimidation.

    I think they just admitted to being bullshitters of the shittiest order.

    One more support vote for Kathleen here.

    — David Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction)    Apr 3, 03:17 PM    #

  12. I hope the judge is humorless when it comes to lawyers trying to intimidate people who are discussing legitimate concerns. I’d like to see Shoemaker dealt with by his bar association actually, but I realize that might be a bit much to hope for.

    — I am Kathleen III and a listed blogger    Apr 3, 03:49 PM    #

  13. Wow and woah, are the first two things that come to mind. Are they for real? I too second the fact that it’s a good thing you have such knowledge of the law. Go get ‘em! I’m still baffled how you, how any of us bloggers, would have anything to do with this case? WTF?!?!?!

    The very interesting thing is, I thought the new chorus they were singing was that “the tide has come in” and the CDC will “eat their words?” If things are looking so up for them, why are they stooping so low with this?

    — S.L.    Apr 3, 04:45 PM    #

  14. …I am totally speechless. This goes beyond arrogance and into “Has the world LOST IT?” This is in no way shape or form legal, and they messed with a whole lot of people in paragraph 5. I for one won’t stand down. Good for you for fighting it, if there is anything I or anyone else can do, do make me/us aware?

    — I am Kathleen v4.0, also listed    Apr 3, 04:48 PM    #

  15. Hmmm,the Virginia Bar Association….

    http://vsbc.vipnet.org/

    — I Am Kathleen 5    Apr 3, 05:17 PM    #

  16. Shocking, unfair, despicable actions.
    Your letter is (of course) very well done. How much time you must have already wasted on this shoddy, baseless threat.
    We’re with you Kathleen. Let us know if there’s any practical steps we can take to help.

    — We're Kathleen    Apr 3, 05:44 PM    #

  17. What a fucking crock of shit. There will be a Streisand Effect that will be somewhat difficult for them to control.

    — I am Kathleen, but a guy    Apr 3, 06:03 PM    #

  18. I too do not know what to say. My low opinion of lawyers has plummeted even further. We’re with you on this side of the pond anyway, and you jave our support.

    — Deetee    Apr 3, 07:18 PM    #

  19. Well, I have little to say here other than try your best to bring down the full force of the law on what is obviously a friviolous action. They want your religious affiliations, all email corrospondence and bank statements in a case about vaccines?

    — Gareth Nelson    Apr 3, 07:23 PM    #

  20. Wow.

    blink

    blink

    blink

    Wow.

    — Genevieve    Apr 3, 07:24 PM    #

  21. I would like to leave a lengthy discourse about the ethical or moral challenges of those involved with issuing this kind of frivolous subpoena, however I think her majesty sums it up best when she hands out a “We are not pleased.”

    The sanctions mentioned above sound like a good thing to look into, in my opinion.

    — Patrick    Apr 3, 07:27 PM    #

  22. Actually I think this may rise to the level of warranting actual news coverage by the “real” media. It is so transparently obvious that the only connection to this case that Kathleen has is that she has been a burr in the side of the lawyers and Ms Sykes trying to spin their disinformation.

    I would think the “real” media would want to get on top of such an obvious case of misuse of subpoena power to squelch investigative reporting.

    I would think that even (dare I say) David Kirby would be concerned when “investigative reporters” are subjected to such draconian legal threats. After all, he is an “investigative reporter”. I am certain that David Kirby’s files and correspondence would be much more interesting to Glaxo-SmithKline, Wyeth, Inc. and Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corporation than Kathleen’s files would be to Ms Sykes. No doubt the files and correspondence of the bloggers on ageofautism.com would be a lot more interesting too. If the plaintiffs in this case can subpoena a random blogger, presumably so can the defendants.

    Perhaps this could be the opening that brings the whole house of cards of the Mercury Malacia tumbling down.

    — I am Kathleen    Apr 3, 07:34 PM    #

  23. Every time the Mercury Militia have one of these issued, they admit publically that they have nothing else to rely on – no evidence, no case, and no science.

    Just ad hominem attacks (which is what a SLAPP amounts to, since it seeks to imply underhand goings on on the part of the SLAPPee).

    I’d be fucking embarrassed to be one of them, now, if I was one.

    I’m so glad I was born with a brain that works better than that.

    — David Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction)    Apr 3, 07:39 PM    #

  24. Well, if you don’t get it squashed, and they sue you for non-compliance, make sure your lawyer sends a subpoena just like the one you got to Shoemaker…
    …and his mom
    …and his pastor/imam
    …and his cat.

    — Brian    Apr 3, 08:51 PM    #

  25. @22: I would think the “real” media would want to get on top of such an obvious case of misuse of subpoena power to squelch investigative reporting.

    One of the Scienceblogs, Denialism, picked up the story. It’s a start.

    — I am Kathleen II    Apr 3, 09:04 PM    #

  26. Come on CNN and NYT get off your duffs and expose the pale, chilled and slithery underbelly of autism extremism and it’s relationship to autism carpetbagging.

    — I am Kathleen III and a listed blogger    Apr 3, 09:08 PM    #

  27. Not surprising, sadly.

    — I am Kathleen III    Apr 3, 09:10 PM    #

  28. In addition to the injustices threatened by the subpoena itself, I’m also concerned that Shoemaker (or some proxy thereof, legit or otherwise) might go after the web-host of neurodiversity.com . Generally speaking, the host has no legal obligation to provide content if they find it, or it’s detractors, a potential threat to their business interests. Thus, if such detractors make threats (legal or otherwise) against the hosting company, they may remove the site, with or without warning.

    Now, I know nothing about the host of neurodiversity.com, it’s policies, or where it is based. If it is a US company, the courts can order it to remove content. If it is based overseas, often US courts have no jurisdiction, and little or no influence.

    In any case, I would recommend, as a precaution, that there be multiple, independent backup copies of the whole site, ready to be deployed on surrogate hosts, including, perhaps, non-US hosts.

    This sort of thing is well beyond my technical expertise, but I am somewhat familiar with the much higher profile case of Wikileaks, and it is by such means that they have repeatedly prevailed over some very nasty and powerful attackers.

    And, simply put, this website is one of the very best resources on the web — its continued existence must be protected. A injustice against neurodiversity.com is an injustice against ALL of us!

    — I'm Kathleen, and so is my wife!    Apr 3, 09:50 PM    #

  29. I do believe you may have violated a law when you published material you obtained from the PACER system. Ordinarily, you must sign in and pay for each record you look up. You have it on your blog for everyone to see free of charge?

    With the exception of a few areas you sound like you had a lawyer help you write this!

    — lacshmiybarra    Apr 3, 10:17 PM    #

  30. Insufferable mendicants! Intolerable. Their assumed haughtiness and transparent appeal to authority only shows their ineptitude, their preconceived and hollow certainty and their willful disregard for any who challenges their cherished prejudice.

    I hope you provide them with a comeuppance that stings them smartly. May the very court they appeal to turn about and take a large chunk from their foul backsides.

    Sign me, Kathleen too.

    — I am Kathleen    Apr 3, 10:23 PM    #

  31. “Lexus Nexus”?

    You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried.

    — I am not Kathleen, but I play one on TV    Apr 3, 11:50 PM    #

  32. I’m amazed that in NH all a lawyer needs to do is sign a subpoena to have it be legal, they don’t have to take it to a judge or anything?

    the Legal system in this country needs a serious overhaul.

    just MHO as always. I’m gonna post this to my blog as well, although I don’t have too many readers….;)

    Good Luck Kathleen.

    — zed    Apr 4, 12:01 AM    #

  33. It would almost be satisfying to dump all your records on the table and challenge them to find anything incriminating. But knowing the way these people are, they’d make something up anyway.

    I hope the judge picks up on the “sanctionable” nature of Cliff Shoemaker’s conduct. Shoemaker has picked the wrong woman to mess with.

    — isles (a Kathleen wannabe)    Apr 4, 12:07 AM    #

  34. Not to pull one tiny straw from a whole heap of “Ya gotta be kidding!!,” but …

    “Muslim or otherwise …” ??

    What exactly is that meant to suggest?

    — Ich bin ein Kathleener    Apr 4, 01:36 AM    #

  35. “Ian John’s neurodiveristy blod”???
    hahahahahahahaha.

    The list of bloggers includes: ‘Desperately seeking reason and ethics’… and the shoe didn’t stop and think about what he was doing?

    — I am Kathleen III and a listed blogger    Apr 4, 01:51 AM    #

  36. blimey!!! here are some more blogs which have taken this up – copied by me from Michelle Dawson’s TMoB:
    http://www.overlawyered.com/2008/04/vaccin…ubpoenas-kathl.html Same post at Point of Law
    http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/2008/04…subpoenas-kathl.php

    From I Speak of Dreams http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_drea…athleen-seidel.html

    — Dinah    Apr 4, 02:18 AM    #

  37. It’s just surreal, especially the “Muslim” part. I’ve appreciated your bringing the (sometimes shocking) truth to light. They must be desperate to be trying to intimidate you like this.

    — Elaine a.k.a. Kathleen    Apr 4, 02:53 AM    #

  38. More blog reaction as of April 4, 2008:

    Instapundit

    Jack’s News Watch

    Grey Matter/White Matter

    Law and More

    Crux of the Matter

    — I am Kathleen II    Apr 4, 06:22 AM    #

  39. Where’s Billy Shakespeare when we need him?

    — David Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction)    Apr 4, 07:31 AM    #

  40. Good grief, Kathleen. Keep up the good fight and keep us in the loop

    — Dawn    Apr 4, 07:54 AM    #

  41. You wrote that yourself without a lawyer? Wow. I was going to comment about how it sucks that you had to pay for a lawyer for this…

    Well done. I haven’t seen the document from the other side, but it’s hard to see how anyone could think their request was reasonable after reading this.

    — I Want To Be A Kathleen    Apr 4, 09:28 AM    #

  42. Kathleen, is Sykes licensed to practice in New Hampshire? If not, then it looks like the “subpoena” is just so much hot air: http://www.overlawyered.com/2008/04/vaccine-lawyer-subpoenas-kathl.html

    Is Shoemaker, a VA attorney registered to practice before the US District COurt for the District of NH? If not (and I suspect that this is the case) the subpoena is meaningless. Ms. Seidel should call the Clerk to see if Shomaker is registered to practice in that court and act accordingly by putting that information in her motion to quash along with a request for sanctions. See FRCP Rule 41:
    © Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena.
    (1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions.
    A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction — which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney’s fees — on a party or attorney who fails to comply.
    Rule 11 sanctions may also be appropriate.

    — Phoenix Woman    Apr 4, 09:39 AM    #

  43. Check comment #9 on the Overlawyered blog article over this case; the subpoena may be meaningless (sorry I can't do the URL, I'm just hopeless at this stuff).

    — Just a Kathleen wannabee    Apr 4, 09:42 AM    #

  44. Wanted to be sure that you see the reply over at Overlawyered. It looks like good advice.

    — Kathleen for a moment    Apr 4, 09:44 AM    #

  45. Respectful Insolence has also covered the issue

    — Kathleen for a moment    Apr 4, 09:47 AM    #

  46. this is my first time visiting neurodiversity.com (i just read about this story on the pharyngula blog), and i must say that you’re handling thie situation very well. good luck to you :)

    — sasha    Apr 4, 10:03 AM    #

  47. no freaking way!

    Well, this seems like a classical case of “touche”. I hope Mr Shoemaker gets his wrist slapped big time for this and wish you all the luck with your motion. Hopefully, the judges in this matter will see through this move.

    — would be honored to be half as good as Kathleen    Apr 4, 10:04 AM    #

  48. Holy f’ing shit?!? Gone for a couple of days, and holy hell breaks loose.

    Kathleen, do not give an inch. Just skimmed over the subpoena, and it looks like utter bullshit, seriously.

    Oh, you may be interested in this:

    http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/04/judge-quashes-pfizer-bid-for-nejm-papers/

    — bones    Apr 4, 10:35 AM    #

  49. I’ve been saying it all night: Kathleen, you are amazing. Wish I had a fraction…

    — Ralph Smith    Apr 4, 10:38 AM    #

  50. Kathleen, you have done the right thing by filing the motion to quash. Do NOT listen to the commenters above suggesting that Shoemaker has to be licensed to practice in NH in order for the subpoena to be valid. That is WRONG. An attorney representing a party in a federal case can serve a subpoena in any federal district in connection with that case. That subpoena is NOT “meaningless,” it is valid on its face.

    That said, your arguments in your motion are good ones. Good luck.

    — Glenn    Apr 4, 11:25 AM    #

  51. PZ Meyers just posted about your situation on Pharyngula.

    Fight the good fight and know you have a lot of people in your corner!!!

    — B. Baggott    Apr 4, 11:31 AM    #

  52. Kudos for both the tone and content of your response. This attack on reasonable online commentary is outrageous.

    — emily    Apr 4, 11:31 AM    #

  53. Wow. This is just disgusting. I don’t know what to do to help, but I’ll be blogging about it later today, for sure!

    — Jeff Gitchel    Apr 4, 11:46 AM    #

  54. Glen’s right re validity.

    What I find peculiar, however, neither the VA nor the NH dockets list an entry for the notice of depo w/ subpoena duces tecum and affidavit of service.

    I’m not sure that means anything, but it’s odd, nonetheless.

    — bones    Apr 4, 11:48 AM    #

  55. I’d say SLAPP him right back in the nuts…but then that’s me.

    — NutSlapper    Apr 4, 11:53 AM    #

  56. We picked up on this at AFF, and we are... quite gobsmacked.

    Show ‘em what for; don’t let the bastards win.

    — pikajedi3    Apr 4, 11:54 AM    #

  57. Blog posts referencing Seidel and/or the subpoena:

    April 3 2008 (alphabetical order)

    Autista

    Crux of the Matter

    Denialism

    Grey Matter/White Matter

    I Speak of Dreams

    Instapundit

    Jack’s News Blog

    James Randi Educational Foundation Forum

    Overlawyered (cross posted at Point of Law Forum and Iatrogrogenic Forum)

    April 4 2008—to 9:00 AM PDT (alphabetical order)

    Aspies for Freedom

    Going to the Mat

    Law and More

    Overlawyered

    Pharyngula

    Pure Pedantry

    Respectful Insolence

    Trusted MD

    The Voyage

    Whose Planet Is It Anyway?

    — I am Kathleen II    Apr 4, 11:58 AM    #

  58. bones (10:48),
    A subpoena or notice of deposition is not required to be, and would not normally be, filed with the court.

    — Glenn    Apr 4, 01:09 PM    #

  59. Rock on, Kathleen! Way to refuse to be bullied!

    Good luck.

    — Cheeseburger Brown    Apr 4, 01:11 PM    #

  60. Two more bloggers: Rev. BigDumb Chimp and New Pope Hat

    Ken, writing at New Pope Hat makes a good point:

    The subpoena, in my opinion, is a regrettable example of the way the law permits unscrupulous lawyers retaliate against people who criticize their litigation tactics. Mr. Shoemaker’s subpoena — which thuggishly demands practically every record reflecting every communication Seidel has had with anyone concerning the issues she blogs about — is not only clearly intended to punish and intimidate, it has that inescapable effect. Seidel has filed a motion to quash pro se. It’s very well written and an excellent effort, but I hope that some lawyers in her jurisdiction will offer to supplement it pro bono, as her arguments would be even stronger if supported by applicable precedent (and by a strong argument for sanctions)

    Any lawyers reading this who live in New Hampshire?

    — I am Kathleen II    Apr 4, 01:15 PM    #

  61. Doesn’t Mr. Shoemaker realize that the quickest way to turn public opinion against him is to attack the blogging community?
    Spread the word people.

    By the way… shouldn’t a subpoena actually be signed??

    — Bill    Apr 4, 01:48 PM    #

  62. As a Texas lawyer, I am appalled at what appears to me to be clear abuse in this subpoena. It is even more shameful because it reflects so badly on this whole profession, which has a bad enough rep as it is. The motion to quash is really well done, though, and I commend you for it. I cannot wait to see the Court’s response on this one.

    — Kim    Apr 4, 02:23 PM    #

  63. Glenn, ok. I’d still refuse, however, and force him to file a motion to compel, and force him to explain himself to the court.

    …but Kathleen seems to be handling it just fine.

    — bones    Apr 4, 02:44 PM    #

  64. This is an appalling abuse. Could perhaps someone acquainted with Peter Irons enquire if he has a few hours to spare?

    — Stephen    Apr 4, 02:49 PM    #

  65. bones, I understand your inclination, but unfortunately where a subpoena commands attendance at a deposition, you can’t just object and force a motion to compel. (If all the subpoena sought were documents, you can object and force a motion to compel.) You risk being held in a contempt by not complying. Highly unlikely in this case, but the safe route is to move to quash.

    — Glenn    Apr 4, 02:49 PM    #

  66. Hi Kathleen,

    I got pointed here by PZ Myers of the scienceblog Pharyngula. My son has Asperger’s and I just want to say I am glad to find another resource. Good luck, and don’t let the turkeys get you down.

    — True Bob    Apr 4, 03:40 PM    #

  67. Kafkaesque. It seems to me an obvious attempt to shut down the autism hub. I think the verbiage “Muslim or otherwise” is to associate neurodiversity and other blogs with a religion which has had some members commit atrocious acts.

    — mayfly    Apr 4, 03:47 PM    #

  68. Kathleen,

    I was also pointed here by Pharyngula. I have nothing to add but to say that I’m behind you 100%!

    — defectiverobot    Apr 4, 03:55 PM    #

  69. I’m sorry it took me so long to notice this.

    This is all very ridiculous. It’s just an excuse to snoop and intimidate. And I can’t believe they are trying to use your religion against you. (Well, yeah, I can, but it’s stupid. I’m trying to imagine a vast Sufi conspiracy and just not seeing it.)

    — Amanda    Apr 4, 04:02 PM    #

  70. The litigant in this case had better not set foot in the UK else I will issue my own proceedings for vexatious litigation, a tort that is not without sanctions or penalty.

    I quote:

    “The hallmark [of a vexatious litigant] usually is that the plaintiff sues the same party repeatedly in reliance on essentially the same cause of action, perhaps with minor variations, after it has been ruled upon, thereby imposing on defendants the burden of resisting claim after claim; that the claimant relies on essentially the same cause of action, perhaps with minor variations, after it has been ruled upon, in actions against successive parties who if they were to be sued at all should have been joined in the same action; that the claimant automatically challenges every adverse decision on appeal; and that the claimant refuses to take any notice of or give any effect to orders of the court. The essential vice of habitual and persistent litigation is keeping on and on litigating when earlier litigation has been unsuccessful and when on any rational and objective assessment the time has come to stop.”

    from http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications_media/speeches/2006/sp300606.htm
    I think given the nature of this communication and the mention of my website I might also have grounds to sue not only Mr Shoemaker and his associates known or unknown for libel, but yourself and your ISP for publishing it.

    My only connection with Neurodiversity.com is that you got the domain before I did.

    — laurentius-rex    Apr 4, 04:25 PM    #

  71. @29, by lacshmiybarra, re: PACER: I do believe you may have violated a law when you published material you obtained from the PACER system. Ordinarily, you must sign in and pay for each record you look up. You have it on your blog for everyone to see free of charge?

    According to these folks, PACER charges a fee for access to what are documents in the public domain. Anyone who’s paid the $0.08 can do anything whatsoever with the documents thereafter, so unless K. got hers via an exemption she should be fine.

    — kathleenski    Apr 4, 04:42 PM    #

  72. Yes. Beyond ridiculous.

    Hopefully your response and a judge with a brain will quash the subpoena. Failing that, and with the worldwide (let alone nationwide) blog coverage this is getting, maybe a publically-spirited Law Prof in your neck of the woods would like to take up the cudgels pro bono…

    An outside observer might well conclude that your last piece laying out exactly how Mr Shoemaker and various other Mercury Militia favourites like the Geiers was the trigger for this. The demonstration of just exactly how much mutually back-scratching financial interest they have in keeping the Mercury Causation bandwagon rolling makes them look sleazy. Remember that in the UK what really killed off Andrew Wakefield’s cred with all but the die-hard vaccine crazies was the revelation that he had billed the state legal aid fund personally for nearly US $ 800,000 for his “expert” services to the anti-vaccine lawyers.

    Anyway, I guess Shoemaker and company can’t or don’t want to tackle you direct on 4th Amendment grounds, so this nuisance-style “legal chill” is the best they could come up with.

    Anyway, best of luck from the UK. Hope you get any legal help you need AND plenty of publicity / media attention to help expose Shoemaker for the ambulance-chaser he appears to be.

    — Dr Aust    Apr 4, 04:53 PM    #

  73. Good job on the legal. I hope this gets quashed like a bug on a Greyhound Bus. I also hope Shoemaker is sanctioned for legal stupidity (is that a legal term?). You have my support.
    From a Nursing Student tired of bad Science getting in the way of good Care.

    — ken mareld    Apr 4, 05:26 PM    #

  74. The commentators on the legal blogs are all amazed at the order to squash you wrote. Any chance of a legal career for you?

    — Ruth    Apr 4, 05:35 PM    #

  75. Needless to say, Kathleen, you have enough to worry about without assholes like this “laurentius rex” character threatening you with a libel suit. Obviously, there is no basis for such a suit, even in the UK where they don’t have much a of a commitment to free speech and you can sue for libel at the drop of a hat. Still, I sure wouldn’t continue to keep this prick on my blogroll.

    — Glenn    Apr 4, 05:37 PM    #

  76. I take no umbrage with Larry; I prefer to reserve the possibility that he's ribbing me. But boy am I glad that truth-tellers in the U.S. aren't held to the standard of strict liability if those truths happen to embarrass someone with the means and inclination to hale them into court.

    — Kathleen Seidel    Apr 4, 06:24 PM    #

  77. “lacshmiybarra”:

    “I do believe you may have violated a law when you published material you obtained from the PACER system. Ordinarily, you must sign in and pay for each record you look up. You have it on your blog for everyone to see free of charge?”

    It’s your theory that public documents like the court records on PACER are protected by copyright?

    Do you have a citation to an authority for that proposition?

    That’s going to be a shock to the Duke Law Library.

    — Ken    Apr 4, 06:49 PM    #

  78. Jeez, all this because he wants your domain name? Seriously?

    I can’t believe I’m reading this.

    — K8    Apr 4, 07:42 PM    #

  79. I hear this might be in the major media tomorrow. Heads up to your legal secretary Mr. Shoemaker. You might want to figure out something for parking for the TV news vans.

    I bet right now he’s practicing how to say, “No comment,” without looking too stressed.

    — I am Kathleen III and a listed blogger    Apr 4, 07:59 PM    #

  80. lacshiybarra: as others have pointed out, things on pacer are filings in federal court, and anything in a federal court case file is a public record not that the courts have no copyright in. Also, the fee pacer charges isn’t a rights fee, it’s a fee that covers the cost of providing remote access to whats in a case file, a very important service indeed.

    and phoenix woman: if shoemaker is licensed in ANY state, he is able to practice before ANY federal court. You don’t need to be a resident or licensed in a state to be eligible to practice in its federal courts. I have no doubt that Shoemaker has already had to comply with any registration requirements the New Hampshire court has because the court clerk would itself be policing that issue.

    and Kathleen: the fourth amendment claim is a loser, because the person demanding your documents is not the government, it’s a private party. Private parties in the courts have the right to discover any relevant, non-privileged information. But the other claims might well fly, since this certainly smells like harassment. Good luck.

    — mark    Apr 4, 08:04 PM    #

  81. Went back and read your motion to quash again, Kathleen. Of course, I am not a lawyer (I’m another of those dweeb-y scientists) but as a view from someone who reads and analyses a lot of written word…

    …simply your 12 (and 17) should hopefully get the subpoena slung out, since as you say “legitimate discovery of germane facts” would be a stretch of epic proportions, and the intent seems to be fairly clearly to shut you up by harassment.

    As a blogger, I found your arguments 13 and 14 very interesting. I am curious to know what the case law is on a blogger arguing that they are de facto a journalist, and under what circumstances this is arguable. I thought the argument under 13 about your blog and its role was really neat in that regard… and (I would have thought) just the think to interest some local law Professor with an interest in internet law and “citizen journalism”.

    — Dr Aust    Apr 4, 09:16 PM    #

  82. See if the Electronic Freedom Foundation can help – http://www.eff.org/work

    — Gina    Apr 4, 09:43 PM    #

  83. Mark, you’re not the first person to point out the relative weakness of my Fourth Amendment claim. Still, a “Demand to Appear” accompanied by a warning that I might face contempt of court charges if I don’t comply indicates that the government would be involved in its enforcement.

    Anyway, any port in a storm.

    — Kathleen Seidel    Apr 4, 10:01 PM    #

  84. Being admitted to one federal court doesn’t mean you are admitted to all. And, the legal practice is regulated by the states, not the feds. To be admitted in a federal court, you must be admitted in the corresponding state. In fact, if your state has more than one district (e.g. NC Western, Middle, and Eastern Districts) you must apply for admission in each. You can file a motion for admission pro hac vice (for this thing only) but that filing must be made on your behalf by a member of that state’s bar by a lawyer admitted in that district court. So, he must have jumped through several hoops in order to practice law in NH, and he is practicing law in NH by serving this subpoena.

    — bob neal    Apr 4, 10:43 PM    #

  85. Added my voice. Give him Hell, Kathy!

    — Alan Kellogg    Apr 4, 11:04 PM    #

  86. I’ve also written a post today pointing out some of the things I found most absurd about this subpoena, and I’m likely going to write more within the next several days.

    — codeman38    Apr 4, 11:36 PM    #

  87. I recommend attorney Bob Walsh in Manchester.

    — Dr Benway    Apr 5, 12:28 AM    #

  88. Kathleen, what is the frequency?

    — Do'C    Apr 5, 12:28 AM    #

  89. Kathleen: True, the government compels you to appear, but nonetheless the law says you have to appear if your appearance is deemed relevant (subject to privilege, of course). The interest in finding the truth in court outweighs privacy interests in that case. Few witnesses are eager to appear at depositions.

    And “any port in a storm” is a common pro-se theory for filing, but it can be counter-productive. I used to work on pro-se filings at a federal appeals court. You shouldn’t mix crappy stuff in with colorable stuff if you can avoid doing so, because you’re evaluated based on the strength of your arguments. Weak stuff can give the reader a bad impression of your filing. But that said, your filing is nice and concise, and on the whole a very good pro se filing.

    And Bob, yes, you’re right that you can’t be a member of the district’s bar without in-state bar, but pro hac vice admission is not a big hurdle to overcome for a lawyer in good standing. Of course he has local counsel to help him. That’s routine. My previous comment was just to point out that just because the lawyer is a Virginian doesn’t mean that it’s unusual for him to be in a federal court in NH. In retrospect I overstated the case. The perils of off the cuff commenting.

    — mark    Apr 5, 12:54 AM    #

  90. I’m with #67 – this is Kafkaesque…

    (visiting here via Pharyngula)

    — CanadianChick    Apr 5, 02:03 AM    #

  91. The ACLU would, I believe, be interested in this, and may be a resource for you.

    — Lindy    Apr 5, 03:50 AM    #

  92. I think my comment was misunderstood by some, I was indicating the absurdity of the law, and the fact that anyone who repeats Mr Shoemakers allegations about my complicity in any imagined conspiracy compounds the libel, this is UK law.

    In fact if Mr Shoemaker ever sets foot in my jurisdiction and I find out about it, I will proceed against him and the damages in such cases can be substantial.

    By implication mr Shoemaker impunes not just me, but any institution I have ever been involved with, that would include the Labour Party, the NAS, the RSA, Birmingham University among others. I am also a member of the RAC (vehicle recovery very sinister) and the William Morris society, Autism West Midlands and the Warwick Graduates Association. I suppose Autscape and the Coventry and Warwickshire Neurodiversity group are in on the conspiracy too?

    I would like to know in the world of joint stock holding whether mr Shoemaker holds shares in companies that hold shares in companies that hold shares in big Pharma?

    — laurentius-rex    Apr 5, 03:55 AM    #

  93. A decade ago, I was served a third-party subpoena by the “church” of $cientology. The subpoena was fatally flawed, however, because the paltry witness fee (I want to say it was $30) was not provided along with the subpoena. I did not bother to inform the cult’s attorney that she’d failed to pay me, and I also failed to show up at the deposition with my hard drive.

    Nothing came of it. I was not sanctioned, nor was this ever brought up before a judge. It was a fishing expedition, pure and simple.

    I hate third-party subpoenas.

    — Mirele    Apr 5, 10:12 AM    #

  94. You know you’re making a real effect (and the right one) when you get this kind of response.

    — Ich bin eine Katrina    Apr 5, 11:42 AM    #

  95. Shocked. Appalled. Outraged.

    I’m also very curious as to what this:

    “religious groups (Muslim or otherwise), or individuals with religious affiliations,” and any other “concerned individuals.”

    is all about.

    I’m Aspie. I’m also happen to be Muslim. And I really don’t like this.

    What. The. Fu(k.

    ????!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

    — I am Katherine    Apr 5, 12:12 PM    #

  96. It is about Kathleen’s online cookbook.

    — HCN    Apr 5, 01:03 PM    #

  97. I’m listed in the subpoena, as well. Obviously they didn’t read my blog; I almost NEVER write about the science of autism!

    Having met Kathleen in person, I have to say that I, too, WISH I were her (or at least as good at this as she is).

    — Jannalou    Apr 5, 01:12 PM    #

  98. HCN: Ah, yes. Because, of course, a cookbook has everything to do with neurodiversity and the vaccine-autism case… </sarcasm>

    — codeman38    Apr 5, 02:31 PM    #

  99. Wow. A lot can happen in a couple of days. I came upon this late too. This is an attempt at intimidation via SLAPP plain and simple. This really belongs in the mainstream media, as a legal-abuse story. I am not a lawyer — so for the very little my opinion on it is worth, it does look like you’re taking the right steps in response. Hang in there.
    I don’t have a blog, so I don’t have as much of a public net-presence as a blogger, but I am Kathleen too. And so are so many of us who aren’t bloggers, but rather just read and comment.

    — Phil Schwarz    Apr 5, 02:34 PM    #

  100. Phil, the dragnet is cast for you, too; all you have to be is a “concerned individual,” and you can swim right in.

    — Kathleen Seidel    Apr 5, 02:39 PM    #

  101. You know, I was just looking at the subpoena. When they ask about the blogs, it seems as though the list was copied from your blogroll on the right hand side of the page. There’s even HTML erroneously included.

    — wackyvorlon    Apr 5, 02:55 PM    #

  102. Thought your readers might be interested in this post. I’m a blogger who has had legal headaches, too.

    — Roger Shuler    Apr 5, 03:58 PM    #

  103. Glen, wouldn’t at least the affdv’t of service be filed on the docket, and, consequently, PACER?

    — bones    Apr 5, 04:46 PM    #

  104. Holy cow. That subpoena is crazazay. I had just noticed the same thing as wacky…even the href coding was left in. But why didn’t they include AutismVox, etc.? Someone’s simply engaged in the business of wasting time here. Completely useless. If you were actually to provide all that is requested, you’d have to bring your entire house with you.

    — ejwillingham    Apr 5, 04:48 PM    #

  105. “I used to work on pro-se filings at a federal appeals court. You shouldn’t mix crappy stuff in with colorable stuff if you can avoid doing so, because you’re evaluated based on the strength of your arguments.”

    Point well taken. That said — let me reassure the taxpayers and the beleaguered court clerks of this great land that I’m not going to pull any Keith Russell Judd shenanigans on them.

    — Kathleen Seidel    Apr 5, 05:17 PM    #

  106. Kathy I am sure that not only is this easily quashable – I would suggest this is causation for a counter action against the lawyer concerned and the person he represents. In fact I’ll bet a counter action will quickly cause the supoena to be withdrawn, especially if you add costs and restitution to it.

    Do you know when the motion will be heard if it’s a date other than April 30?

    — Another Supporter    Apr 5, 06:11 PM    #

  107. Hi Kathleen,
    1. your assessment of Larry’s post is correct. What he thinks of Shoemaker does not belong on a public blog. (I asked him)
    2. The really cool thing, that has just occurred to me is that, thanks to Shoemaker, a judge now gets to read your posts about the Geiers.

    — mike stanton    Apr 5, 06:59 PM    #

  108. This is ridiculous, and should not have went this far! I hope it wont burden you too mucn and you will keep us updated.

    — Chimbles    Apr 5, 07:33 PM    #

  109. oh my god, this is appalling!

    i applaud your response. i would sputter and then fall on the floor, crying. you are amazing!

    in solidarity.

    — i am a kathleen wanna-be    Apr 5, 07:56 PM    #

  110. Me, Me, Me! [waves hand madly, squirms behind school desk] I wanna be Kathleen, I wanna be Kathleen!

    Sadly, my blog don’t work no more, and I wasn’t in the copy-pasta list that Shoemaker ripped from Kathleen’s blog, I not being notable to her.

    I wanna be Kathleen!

    — I wanna be Kathleen!    Apr 6, 02:05 AM    #

  111. Mike said:

    “1. your assessment of Larry’s post is correct. What he thinks of Shoemaker does not belong on a public blog. (I asked him)”

    LoL. I agree entirely with him. I think that Shitmaker deserves his new name.

    “2. The really cool thing, that has just occurred to me is that, thanks to Shoemaker, a judge now gets to read your posts about the Geiers.”

    Talk about shitting on one’s own doorstep… this is a veritable Tubgirl trick that Shitmaker’s gone and done :P

    What a prick!

    — David Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction)    Apr 6, 05:16 AM    #

  112. I noticed something about that subpoena: Right above the typed signature, it says “Issuing officer’s signature and title (indicate if attorney for plaintiff or defendant)”. Note that he didn’t so indicate. Can that be a Freudian slip — he isn’t acting as attorney for plaintiff, but is acting strictly for his own benefit?
    Shoemaker is slime. No offense intended to slime.

    — LW    Apr 6, 10:45 AM    #

  113. If this affair blows up into a big enough outrage, I guess New Scientist magazine might possibly be interested in this story. New Scientist gave almost a whole page of coverage to the NT Speaks affair which was sympathetic to the neurodiversity point of view, sending the story to readers around the world.

    Kathleen, you must be doing very important work if these people find you and your fabulous blog and web site such a threat.

    I am proud that my little blog was named in the subpoena along with so many fine blogs and web sites.

    — Lili    Apr 6, 12:51 PM    #

  114. “Can that be a Freudian slip — he isn’t acting as attorney for plaintiff, but is acting strictly for his own benefit?”

    Maybe this is a ground for claiming invalidity of the subpoena, a priori.

    It may even be that Mr Shitmaker deliberately left that blank, in order to have issued an invalid subpoena purely to harrass.

    If not, that his subpoena’s invalidity (if this makes it invalid) demonstrates an incompetence that makes me glad I wouldn’t have to rely on his ‘competences’ as an attorney!

    — David Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction)    Apr 6, 01:44 PM    #

  115. Wow! you know you’re famous and important when deluded assholes send you hate mail and lawyers. :) My blog could never be a famous threat because i keep changing the address …no really it’s because i am a disorganized ADD aspie unable to mount an effective campaign for or against anything. Oh well, i can strive and hope to be as effective, progressive, dangerous and hated as Kathleen!
    For now i’ll just keep playing guitar.

    — just another Kathleen    Apr 6, 02:47 PM    #

  116. “Maybe this is a ground for claiming invalidity of the subpoena, a priori.”

    Sadly, probably not. Looking back at the Motion to Quash, Kathleen did mention the omission, so if it does invalidate, she’s got it covered.

    I was just thinking about why he’s really doing it, especially right after she described his income from these suits. In any case, Clifford Shoemaker is slime. No offense intended to slime.

    — LW    Apr 6, 03:13 PM    #

  117. And I’m just another tr (but without the guitar)!

    Your spread about the tHe rEcYcLeD hAm is one of my favorite places on the web.

    Your comment made me check the link to your blog, and it turns out it was way out of date. I just fixed it. And it's not the first change I've made since I published this little piece of news a few days ago.

    What a crazy way to update a blogroll — piss off some lawyer badly enough that he copies it into a subpoena, post the subpoena online, then have everybody and their brother pore over it and find all of your mistakes and omissions.

    — Kathleen Seidel    Apr 6, 03:34 PM    #

  118. Kathleen,

    I have been doing medical stuff myself and just am out of surgery but have been knocked off my feet from this. You are one of my favorite people, bloggers and researchers. I am just another one to stand by your side, even though I lay in bed.

    — Estee Klar-Wolfond    Apr 6, 03:53 PM    #

  119. Kathleen,

    The more I look at this subpoena, the more despicable it is. You did not specifically mention this in your motion to quash, but the slime demands documents relating to this blog and your attorneys and physicians! Your communications (if any) with your attorneys are normally privileged and confidential, and the burden is on the slime to show they are not.

    Why would you communicate with your physicians about this blog? Unless of course you were talking about some aspect of your health or your son’s health, which perhaps you would blog about, or not, but in any case that too is privileged and confidential.

    In the unlikely event that this subpoena is not quashed, the next step is to ask for a protective order against this massively intrusive subpoena.

    I hope some lawyers or law students will step forward to help you pro bono if it comes to that.

    — LW    Apr 6, 06:03 PM    #

  120. tell them to sit and spin. keep your chin up and don’t let the bastards bring you down.

    — Musicguy    Apr 6, 08:36 PM    #

  121. Please count me Kathleen, as another one to stand by you. If you need me just let me know. I’ll be there.

    — Patti Shepard a.k.a. whirledpeas    Apr 6, 08:41 PM    #

  122. Kathleen— How gratifying to see the number of people supporting you. I often get the feeling that the majority of autism parents believe in the vaccine theory. Now I’m wondering if it’s simply that vaccine skeptics are uncomfortable publicly expressing their views to this crowd. Perhaps your courage will inspire more of us to speak up more often even to tough crowds. Good luck!

    — Katie Beals    Apr 6, 10:30 PM    #

  123. Kathleen: “What a crazy way to update a blogroll — piss off some lawyer badly enough that he copies it into a subpoena, post the subpoena online, then have everybody and their brother pore over it and find all of your mistakes and omissions.”

    AHA! NOW we see the REAL villain umasked! Your entire blog was all just a fiendish plot, meticulously calculated from the first post, to con a veritable army of novice proofreaders, and covertly enlist the poor unsuspecting fools in the task of proofreading your own blogroll for you — and all without spending so much as a wooden nickel!

    Oh, you vile and monstrous conniver, you! So perniciously crafty art thou that even the intrepid Mr. Shoemaker himself doth stumble witless into thy web and do e’en thy puppet’s bidding! O, black soul! O, shame, where is thy blush!

    XD

    — dkmnow    Apr 7, 04:38 PM    #

  124. now look at that – even German blogs are covering this story ;)

    http://www.impfblog.de/?p=4

    — Catherina    Apr 7, 04:41 PM    #

  125. Shoemaker is a nasty law firm. After I left them a webmail comment, with my personal e-mail address listed for contact, they traced the IP to my office and e-mailed my boss, who basically blew it off.

    (And, the bastards didn’t know that I’m an editor and a blogger myself.)

    Vaccine-chasing law firm in an intimidating huff

    — SocraticGadfly    Apr 7, 08:00 PM    #

  126. Kathleen,

    I read the Amended Complaint in this case. There are two causes of action: Design Defect, and Breach of Warranty. There is no claim that the plaintiffs relied on representations by you or on your blog, or anywhere else on the Internet, in deciding whether to get the shot in question (indeed, it is specifically alleged that they relied on representations by the Defendants). There is in fact no mention of you, your blog, any other blogger, or the Internet in this Complaint, and it’s not likely there would be since the shot in question took place in 1994, apparently a decade before you started blogging.

    There is no reason whatsoever to believe that there is anything in your bank statements, your tax returns, your correspondence with friends and fellow bloggers, or your conversations, if any, with your attorneys or your physicians, that would shed the slightest light on whether there was a design defect in the product or if the company breached its warranty. Except, that is, insofar as you have reported research showing that there was no such design defect and no breach of warranty, which I doubt is what this Shoemaker is fishing for.

    There is absolutely no discernable purpose to this subpoena except to harass, intimidate, and burden you. You should contact the Virginia State Bar Association. I doubt it would do much good, as Bar complaints only embarrass reputable attorneys, and a reputable attorney would be too embarrassed to have filed this in first place. But the attempt should be made.

    You should cite Rule 4.4: “In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.” This is on page 74 of the Virginia State Bar Professional Guidelines 2007-2008, which you can find at www.vsb.org/docs/rules-pc_2007-08pg.pdf. Likewise Rule 3.4: “A lawyer shall not: … (j) File a suit, initiate criminal charges, assert a position, conduct a defense, delay a trial, or take other action on behalf of the client when the lawyer knows or when it is obvious that such action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another.” This is on page 64.

    There is an on-line form you can use to make a complaint at vsbc.vipnet.org. I left off the http part to avoid upsetting any spam filters.

    — LW    Apr 7, 08:07 PM    #

  127. Thank you, LW. This is all useful information, and a complaint may well be on my to-do list soon.

    — Kathleen Seidel    Apr 7, 08:26 PM    #

  128. Blimey. I am also ‘on the list’ and my site hasnt been running for years. Mwahahahaha

    Kinda feels cool to be considered so subversive though (lol)

    B xx

    — bethduckie    Apr 8, 10:04 AM    #

  129. Are you kidding me? This simply put, is ridiculous to come after you. When all you’ve done is compile information, which by the way is publicly available, you list the source of the info on your article, and put it together in a concise manner. What is wrong with this picture????

    I hope the Judge throw the book at this classless lawyer!

    — Shssael Perez    Apr 8, 02:20 PM    #

  130. I tell you that this is not all bad: it exposes what type of people we are dealing with, and they are looking pretty rotten to the core through actions like these. Thank you for being so incredibly strong and even minded with your responses. With someone like you, neurodiversity is casted in the positive and strong light that it deserves.

    — Adi    Apr 8, 03:12 PM    #

  131. It’s great to see all the cubs stick up for our “mother bear”, who has been doing the same for us for years. Can’t wait to see how it turns out, which I’m sure will be gratifying. Go get ‘em, Kathleen!

    — Clay    Apr 8, 08:03 PM    #

  132. Hi there Mrs. Seidel….I am quite new to the arena of autism rights……I just started blogging recently, about my experiences (and those of the other two personalities sharing a body with me) on the autism spectrum, as well as being multiple….and other things. This issue came to our attention from Orac’s Open Letter….and even though we know next to nil about legal stuff, this SOUNDS totally ridiculous. I’d write more, and more coherently, but it’s getting late….and the others want me to get the body ready for bed.

    Ivan of athenivanidx, in your defence.

    — Ivan    Apr 9, 12:20 AM    #

  133. Sorry I haven’t said this before, but Bravo to you for your efforts here, and your resistance to this silly garbage. If this causes you trouble, can you get something back from this (if it is discarded, can you claim recompense?)

    — Badger3k    Apr 9, 12:31 AM    #

  134. Some of us at the Autistic Liberation Front meeting were discussing this Tuesday night.

    A tad of humor: under documents that they wish you to produce — the extensive list of everything with Autism or Asperger’s in it— #5 reads “Autism Squeaks” instead of Autism Speaks.
    This was very amusing to me. That organization does not “speak” for me either.

    Here’s to hoping you can get this garbage totally squashed. As for the SLAPP end of it, please get in touch with the Electronic Frontier Foundation at http://www.eff.org if you wish; and with Americans United at http://www.au.org or maybe it is dot com for the demands of correspondence with those who are of Muslim or other religious affiliation.

    Just for the record, I am also Kathleen since I have used the phrase “Autism Squeaks” to mock that organization of curebies on a Live Journal community.

    Blood money is blood money whether it is from pushing L.S.D. to schoolchildren or buying a Lawyerly Lexus off our backs.

    best wishes.
    spike a discordian

    — spike    Apr 9, 03:35 AM    #

  135. I just learned about your subpoena through another blog. And even when I had no idea your site existed, I wish you the best and support your work and courage.

    May the force be with you!

    — MJ    Apr 9, 11:26 AM    #

  136. I am a “concerned individual” living in VA. If there’s anything that could be done by a non-lawyer living physically in VA and somewhat near Shoemaker’s office, let me know.

    — Kathleen in VA    Apr 9, 11:56 AM    #

  137. Amazingly Unbelievable!

    You go girl!

    — Candy    Apr 9, 07:42 PM    #

  138. Kathleen, good going.

    My suggestion is to file a civil lawsuit against those who issued the subpoena to you in the first place. That will bring out the actual scums to the light, especially those who abused the subpoena procedure just to intimidate or silence you or anybody.

    — Rob    Apr 9, 10:49 PM    #

  139. Is this creature Shoemaker totally clueless about the Internet? Did he suppose that Kathleen would do anything other than what she did, posting the subpoena online for the world to see? And did he suppose that the blogosphere would react any other way but to condemn him? Did he not know that there are bloggers who are ethical lawyers who would condemn him? Does he not know how Google works?

    He’s caused Kathleen some expense and anxiety, but his action is going to stay on the Internet forever, for any prospective client to see.

    I don’t think Kathleen should sue. That makes her a party and legitimately subject to subpoena (though still not such a broad subpoena).

    — LW    Apr 10, 06:53 AM    #

  140. “I don’t think Kathleen should sue.”

    Yeh… I agree, for the reason you give…

    She has served him a good fate though… one he richly deserves!

    The status of being “that wanker who ended up plastered all over the net as a shitty lawyer”!

    — David Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction)    Apr 10, 07:33 AM    #

  141. I was directed here by another blog, but I am sorry for your troubles. You’re handling things amazingly well, and, for what it’s worth, you can count my support among the vast amount you’ve already received. I’ll be checking frequently, and doing my own part to ensure this case stays out in the open, and that this shill attorney be lambasted for the slime he is.

    — Randy (r2) Streu    Apr 10, 09:04 AM    #

  142. I can’t believe this – posted supporting you on my blog
    .

    Tom

    — Tom O'Brien    Apr 10, 05:32 PM    #

  143. Mainstream media coverage:
    April 9, Nashua Telegraph (Dave Brooks’ Column)
    April 10, The Wall Street Journal: Best of the Internet (by James Taranto)

    — Liz Ditz    Apr 11, 10:55 AM    #

  144. Congratulations – you made the front page of slashdot

    — hudson    Apr 11, 03:50 PM    #

  145. The fact that this subpoena is enforced and has not been immediately tossed by a judge is a very serious and concerning commentary on our justice system.

    Given the attention it has gotten, I only can hope that you will be able to find the legal support necessary to fight this.

    I also suggest that you consider counter-suing this individual on the ground of malicious and unfounded accusations and legal harassment.

    — Stephen Packard    Apr 11, 03:51 PM    #

  146. So, I’m surprised you didn’t file an abuse of process claim at the same time. They certainly deserve it.

    — Chuckles    Apr 11, 03:53 PM    #

  147. It’s too early for the judge to do anything. I filed my Motion to Quash on March 31. The deadline for Mr. Shoemaker to follow up is April 17.

    — Kathleen Seidel    Apr 11, 03:55 PM    #

  148. now you have been slashdotted.

    — mark    Apr 11, 04:01 PM    #

  149. I got here via an IT based forum (so this is certainly being spread) and am quite astonished by this piece of evil – I can smell it all the way over here in Europe. You have my very best wishes

    — Will Godfrey    Apr 11, 04:05 PM    #

  150. I guess these guys will hit out at anyone who might jeopardize the possibility of them getting their cut of the 20 mil and future cuts of other suits if they are successful. They aren’t going to let a little thing like the truth and science get in the way of the money. Good luck.

    — Frank    Apr 11, 04:09 PM    #

  151. Bravo!!!! Keep up the good fight, Kathleen!

    And how supprising that anti-vax wingnuts also apply their idiotic reasoning to the law. How do they get that as a party unrelated to the case you should be forced to divulge your religious activities, the private medical history of yourself and family, and about your politics? What is the attorney smoking?

    — Nick G    Apr 11, 04:12 PM    #

  152. Found you via slashdot. I have a friend I used to work with whose daughter also has autism and he does not believe the vaccine caused it. Not sure I can speak for a whole state, but Oklahoma says ‘give em what for’.

    — AioKits    Apr 11, 04:24 PM    #

  153. Kathleen, you leave me nearly speechless. All I can do is sit and think. Thank you for chipping away at the dangerous misinformation dung heap that is clogging our world.

    — Bill    Apr 11, 04:35 PM    #

  154. Greetings, I am generally not connected or interested with the subject matter directly addressed on this page. That said, as strong believer in the concepts of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Information on the Internet, this action is an outrage on both a legal level, and the very fundamental values geeky technophiles like myself stand for. I am NOT associated or involved with Anonymous, but I would like to point out that the driving factor behind Anon’s informational war on the Church of Scientology is the exact same issue presented here: censorship/harassment of internet content.
    Kathleen Seidel, you have my full support, and considering that this story has reached blog sites such as slashdot … there are