I Am Kathleen
April 4, 2008 by Do'C 
Printer-Friendly Version
I just read about Kathleen Seidel being supoenaed by Clifford Shoemaker in the case of Sykes v. Bayer (Case No. 3:07-CV-660, Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division).
Yep, you read that right, a vaccine lawyer has apparently served what looks like a most ludicrous subpoena, to a blogger who has nothing to do with the case itself. Neurodiversity does have an interesting post about decisions in cases apparently represented by Mr. Shoemaker and corresponding payments. To some, those payments may look like “big vaccine litigation”, to others, they might not.
Interestingly, Autism Street appears in section (5) of the subpoena. I don’t really know why, as I don’t have anything to do with neurodiversity.com (other than the fact that neurodiversity.com has a hyperlink to Autism Street and Autism Street has a hyperlink to neurodiversity.com). I know I read neurodiversity.com because I find the content well-supported, interesting, and well-written. I have the hyperlink on my blog so that readers who visit Autism Street, who may feel they share interests of mine, can see what other web content I find interesting.
As Kathleen notes in her motion to quash, it would appear that this subpoena should be considered
“unconstitutional, illegal and barred by the journalist’s privilege”
and
“excessively intrusive in its terms”
I happen to agree.
But, Mr. Shoemaker, let me save you a little trouble in regards to the author of Autism Street.
I have spoken with Kathleen Seidel - once. I don’t know if she took notes or not.
I had heard from a blogger that Kathleen’s mother was gravely ill. I asked around, and was able to obtain Kathleen’s phone number. I called her on the phone, introduced myself, and wished her and her family well.
Of course, similar to neurodiversity.com, this has absolutely nothing to do with determining Bayer’s liability for Wesley Sykes’ medical and developmental problems, but since Autism Street is listed in section (5) of the subpoena, I thought I might as well come clean. Even though I have only spoken with her once on the phone, I consider myself a personal friend of Kathleen Seidel’s.
Full Disclosure
I do not work for neurodiversity.com.
I do not work with neurodiversity.com.
I am not a member, employee, or consultant of any advocacy group (or any of those other things listed).
I am the father of an autistic child.
I work in a field completely unrelated to medicine, law, or the pharmaceutical industry.
- I am Kathleen
Although it won’t surprise me if this hits the mainstream media, you can read more about this at the following links for now:
PZ Myers,Orac,Denialism, Overlawyered, NYPILB, and Pooflinger’s too.
You can join the discussion on this issue at the Neurodiversity weblog.
Update 4/5: Liz over at I Speak of Dreams is compiling a list of responses from the blogging community.
Update 4/6: Science blogger, Orac, over at Respectful Insolence has written An Open Letter to David Kirby and Dan Olmsted (both bloggers who should be concerned about the potential implications of this issue) about their relative silence on the Kathleen Seidel subpoena, so far.
13 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Important Comment Notes
Installed spam filter plugins may result in your comment being held in a moderation queue. Please consider making a copy of your comment "just in case". You can use many XHTML tags to mark up your comment if desired.
Additional information about comments and other contact can be found here
Comment by I am Kathleen II — 4 April, 2008 @ 10:25 am
Hi Do’C — I too am listed on the subpoena — when I went and counted, it looks like pretty much the blogroll from Neurodiversity.com was listed.
If you click on the URL above, it takes you to my post on the vile subpoena — I’m keeping a running list of who has blogged on the issue.
I’m doing my part for the “Streisand Effect”.
Comment by I want to be Kathleen — 4 April, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
Kathleen Siedel is so danged good at what she does blogging–I’ve often thought she should be a lawyer.
I don’t think she would run into problems where the Special Master would have to take pity on the petitioner because the counsel was so slow that the case could be thrown out for lack of prosecution.
Not that anyone in this discussion was ever in that situation….
Comment by dkmnow — 4 April, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
If you do a little comparison, you’ll find that the list in which you are included is an exact copy of Kathleen’s blogroll.
Yes, you read that right — their determination of who should be implicated consisted of nothing more than copying and pasting a section of her side-bar.
I’ll be posting an “open letter” to Shoemaker about his little witch-hunt some time tonight.
Comment by laurentius-rex — 4 April, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
Bully for you.
I am mentioned twice in the subpoena under different latin monikers, well lawyers are fond of latin aren’t they?
As I say to Mr Shoemaker, be careful not to set foot in the UK because I shall be watching to issue my own writs under a law he will not find so friendly.
We take such matters as libel, vexatious litigation, data protection and professional confidence very seriously, this subpoena would appear to run the proverbial coach and horses through all of them.
To impute in any way that I might have a nefarious connection with a pharmaceutical would not only be untrue, that is a potentially actionable statement in itself and one on which the onus probandi would be on Mr Shoemaker to establish not for me to defend.
I think Mr Shoemaker needs to analyse just who else he may have implicated and offended in his pathetic trawl as he may inadvertently have caught a few big fish who will bite back, you cannot throw out accusations of that sort and expect not to have to defend them yourself, I cannot not know for sure who else he has potentially libelled and defamed, but I would be cautious, very cautious if I were him. For as the illuminati might well say nemo me impune lacessit
Comment by Leila — 4 April, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
That’s cool that Pharyngula blogged about the case and even called the lawyer for what he really is. I noticed the lawyer’s website misspells thimerosal.
Comment by Kathleen Seidel — 5 April, 2008 @ 6:31 am
Thank you, friend.
Comment by Do'C — 5 April, 2008 @ 11:31 pm
Kathleen, no thanks are necessary, but you are most welcome. What a jackass.
Comment by passionlessDrone — 6 April, 2008 @ 7:29 am
Idiotic stuff, truly.
- pD
Comment by Bob King — 13 April, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
I’m Kathleen Too.
And trying to get something going about it that’s something like the “wall against hate,” getting people to make various expressions saying “I am Kathleen Seidel” and putting them on their blogs, on t-shirt sites (so they show up in the search engines when you search for autism related designs, law related designs, etc)
T-shirts are my train-spotting - combining graphic art, wearable art and ring-spun (now tagless, I want to KISS Hains for tagless t-shirts…) cotton.
Comment by Thiz 'n' Dat — 14 April, 2008 @ 3:59 am
Great to see another Kathleen supporter!
Here’s another blog post on that topic:
http://thizndat.blogspot.com/2008/04/i-am-kathleen-freedom-of-speech.html
Comment by Ivan — 15 April, 2008 @ 8:27 am
Hi there……….I wrote stuff about Kathleen too……..I’m pretty new to the autistic advocacy crew……..I’m one of three autistic personalities sharing a body. I got to this blog from Ballastexistenz…..I’ve been making acquaintance by blog with as many established autistic advocacy bloggers as possible…….in order to get in the loop and be able to make contributions of my own……
later
Ivan of athenivanidx
come visit our blog if you wish.
Comment by mom of pdd child — 20 April, 2008 @ 8:12 pm
I stumbled in to your website while researching DMPS IV chelation… which we plan to implement as soon as we get our kiddo’s mineral levels high enough to start.
This is all very interesting to me… I had heard there were parents who did not consider their childs autism a condition that needed to be treated, but rather just a difference as any other difference one wouldn’t attempt to ‘treat’, but I didn’t believe it. I don’t understand it. I wonder how parents who choose not to try to cure their children from autism have experiences that differ from ours. We definately saw a reaction to vaccinations. I always lived near coal fired generating stations, so maybe as a mother I have a high body burden. I know I got a flu shot while PG, too. And, I know some kids are severly autistic and have never had any vaccination. Yet, where do the heavy metals come from? Where do the porphyrins come from? Or do you not trust any of the labs who provide these test results?
I can understand deciding to spare yourself the time and expense and potentially invasive procedures only to find that your child doesn’t respond to anything, because some kids don’t respond.
I haven’t read the supeoneaed mother’s blog. I did see her reply to it, and I found it well written and I was surprised she was not a lawyer or it was not written by a lawyer. She’s obviously intelligent. I couldn’t understand what in the world the relevance of any religious affiliations could have to anything. However, I too would be really curious about how a parent of a mercury toxic child could decide to not try to treat the condition. I don’t understand. Especially since my kid was in physical pain before we started special diets.
And, I mean no disrespect to any autistic people. My kid doesn’t even have a formal diagnosis, at least because I busted my tail with biomed before I let any evaluations commence. I didn’t want a negative label for my kid, and at this point it is still a negative label and please don’t shoot the messenger for me saying so.
Comment by Do'C — 20 April, 2008 @ 8:37 pm
Perhaps their educational backgrounds in certain scientific fields differ.
Who says any parent of a legitimately mercury toxic child would decide not to seek appropriate treatment?