Welcome to My Conspiracy · 2008-05-18 11:00

The following items were filed the evening of Wednesday, May 14, in the United States Court for the District of New Hampshire (Case 1:08-MC-13).

Response of Clifford J. Shoemaker to Order to Show Cause (.pdf)
Memorandum in Response to Order to Show Cause (.pdf)
Declaration of Clifford J. Shoemaker (.pdf)
Declaration of Lisa Sykes (.pdf)
Declaration of Mark Geier (.pdf)

Approximately eighteen hours later, the Court issued this Order:

“Ms. Seidel need not respond to the ‘Response of Clifford J. Shoemaker… to the Order to Show Cause…’ However, she may respond if she chooses to do so on or before May 27, 2008. James R. Muirhead, United States Magistrate Judge.”

These documents offer a remarkable exposition of the grandiose, cartoonish conspiracy fantasies entertained by advocates of the concept of autism as toxicity and tort, and the arguments of those who seek to justify the perversion of legal processes in order to oppress their critics.

They also indicate that Dr. Mark Geier’s professional activities have been the subject of investigation by the Maryland Board of Physicians and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and that TAP Pharmaceuticals originally agreed to facilitate Dr. Geier’s pharmaceutical experimentation on autistic children.

Virtually every speculation, assumption and conclusion about my beliefs, motivations, sponsorship and capabilities expressed in these statements is inaccurate.

Elements that should be of particular interest to the online community include these assertions:

• that a single individual (in this case, my “principal co-conspirator” and husband of 25 years, Dave Seidel) can exert covert control over Wikipedia;

• that principled, non-violent criticism, advocacy, and sustained focus on complex, controversial topics should be legally defined as criminal harassment by those who object to one’s opinions;

• that skill at using Internet search engines, publicly-available databases and other information sources should render one legally vulnerable to invasive scrutiny by hostile parties;

• and that the only writers who should be entitled to benefit from the reporter’s privilege are those who ask no pointed questions, express no personal opinions, and reveal no embarrassing information about the subjects of their inquiry.


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
1:08-MC-13

Lisa Sykes, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Bayer Corporation, Defendant

3-07 CV 660
Eastern District of Virginia

Response of Clifford J. Shoemaker, by John F. McHugh, His Attorney, to the Order to Show Cause Dated April 21, 2008

John F. McHugh, an attorney admitted to this Court pro hoc vice declares that he is representing Clifford Shoemaker in this matter and as such files this response to the Order to Show Cause, with the supporting declarations of Reverend Lisa Sykes, a plaintiff in this action and Mark Geier, M.D. a witness as well as that of Clifford J. Shoemaker:

1. Since the Order to Show Cause was issued in this matter, this action has been dismissed by stipulation in the Eastern District of Virginia. I understand that it had been initially filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2006 and was then transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia. The subpoena, in issue here, was served on one Kathleen Seidel who runs an informal organization that publishes a web site known as Neurodiversity.com. The subpoena sought to determine the scope and membership of and financial support for the conspiracy Ms. Seidel admits she leads, which is designed to injure Rev. Sykes and her witness due to their filing or participating in this lawsuit in a Court of the United States.

2. The declarations filed herewith establish that at about the same time that this case was filed in a United States District Court, Ms. Seidel launched her campaign against the plaintiffs and the expert witnesses. She has defamed litigants and witnesses, destroyed business relationships and attempted to destroy their professional reputations and livelihoods. She has succeeded in causing them to spend time and money defending themselves against false accusations filed with state licensing boards, professional organizations and with Reverend Sykes’s bishop.

3. Ms. Seidel’s principal co-conspirator, her husband, has apparently seized control of a web encyclopedia so that Ms. Seidel’s opinions of vaccine witnesses are inserted into their biographies and into articles on , all to discredit them in a place where parents of injured children look for information about their child’s disability and possible treatments.

4. Ms. Seidel’s activity consists of a series of intentional torts and as such it is a continuing violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 as is explained in the accompanying memorandum of law. Ms. Seidel states in her web site that others aid her, including her husband. That renders her activity a conspiracy to dissuade potential Federal litigants and their witnesses by intimidation and to penalize those who are not dissuaded by injury to their property interests, particularly their employment. She has in fact inflicted injury as described in the declarations of Rev. Sykes and Dr. Geier.

5. Faced with the specific harassment of witnesses and parties to this lawsuit, by a person utilizing investigative ability well in excess of that available to the mother and housewife she claims to be, justifies inquiry as to whether any of her support and information originates with this defendant or its affiliates, employees or industry organizations is legitimate. There is circumstantial evidence of a link between these activities, i.e. Ms. Seidel’s fixation on this case and her apparent easy access to hard to obtain information about the parties and the witnesses. If a party to litigation is engaged in intimidation of witnesses, the court, in which that case is proceeding, has an urgent interest.

7. In addition, Ms. Seidel’s “beliefs” parallel the defensive positions of drug manufacturers. That combined with the level of her malice and the extent of her resources is sufficient smoke for any attorney to determine that an inquiry is required to determine if there is indeed a fire.

Wherefore, the case is dismissed, this subpoena was not an abuse of this Court’s process when it was issued or served. Therefore, for the reasons set forth here and in the accompanying submissions the Order to Show Cause should be dismissed.

I declare pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

May 12, 2008

JOHN F. MCHUGH
BRIAN T. STERN

Memorandum in Response to Order to Show Cause

By order entered April 21, 2008 the Court ordered Clifford Shoemaker of Vienna, Virginia to show cause why he should not be subject to sanction under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for serving a subpoena upon Kathleen Seidel. The court indicated two areas of concern, the issuance of a subpoena from a court other than the District of New Hampshire and whether the subpoena was oppressive and issued for an improper purpose.

FACTS

Ms. Kathleen Seidel admittedly leads campaigns by like-minded persons to harass any person who files a suit claiming that vaccines or the vaccine preservative Thimerosal (a mercury based drug preservative), together or separately are linked to autism. This case, in the Eastern District of Virginia, is such a claim. Thimerosal, which was a preservative in RhoD, was administered to Rev. Lisa Sykes during her pregnancy with her son Wesley Sykes. The suit, initially filed within the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the United States Court of Claims, removed from that program in 2002 and filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2006 and transferred to Virginia, alleged that Thimerosal caused Wesley to become autistic. Since this Court issued the Order to Show Cause, the case in the Eastern District of Virginia has been dismissed by stipulation of the parties.

Rev. Sykes, her witnesses and her attorneys have been the targets of a campaign of malicious harassment by Ms. Seidel and her co-conspirators. In her web site, Neurodiversity.com, Ms. Seidel has made it abundantly clear that this harassment is due to their participation in this lawsuit. It is believed that Ms. Seidel has been assisted in her efforts by the defendant, directly or indirectly alone or in concert with other manufacturers of these drugs. Ms. Seidel’s efforts are to deter by intimidation persons injured by vaccines from bringing any action claiming an injury due to thimerosal or a vaccine and to deter witnesses from appearing in any such case including the case at bar. It is believed that a party to this action or someone associated with that party is one of Ms. Seidel’s co-conspirators.

Ms. Sykes is a minister in the United Methodist Church. After this action was commenced in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Ms. Seidel commenced a campaign to destroy Rev. Sykes reputation and thus, to jeopardize her ministry. She has written to the Council of the Bishops of the United Methodist Church, asserting that Rev. Sykes, by filing a lawsuit was dishonest and corrupt. This is a direct attack on a litigant’s reputation for honesty and when made to her employer is an attempt to injure her employability.

Mark Geier, a doctor who was listed as an expert witness in this case, has received harassing letters, medical journals, received letters from Ms. Seidel demanding that articles offered for publication by Dr. Geier be rejected, business opportunities have been obstructed or destroyed, charges have been filed by a person affiliated with Ms. Seidel with State licensing authorities and with Federal officials.

When Rev. Sykes and her child’s treating physician were to speak at a conference sponsored by the United Methodist Church, Ms. Seidel organized a campaign directed at church officials to prevent them from appearing due to their participation in this case.

Ms. Seidel’s website contains case specific documents, many posted almost immediately when, or even before, they become accessible to the public due to filing in Court or posting by an agency. She has commented on or published copies of other documents which plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe she could have only received at that time due to some relationship with a party to this action.

The subpoena issued in this matter sought information as to Ms. Seidel’s sources of information and funding to attempt to identify the scope of the conspiracy i.e. to determine if any connection with the defendant, or any organization with which the defendant is affiliated, exists.

I. THE SUBPOENA WAS PROCEDURALLY PROPER

Mr. Shoemaker, an attorney admitted to practice in the Eastern District of Virginia, where the case in issue was pending, signed the subpoena in issue. The subpoena was issued by Mr. Shoemaker as an officer of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (a)(3) provides in relevant part:

An attorney also may issue and sign a subpoena as an officer of:
(A) a court in which the attorney is authorized to practice; or
(B) a court for a district where a deposition is to be taken or production is to be made, if the attorney is authorized to practice in the court where the action is pending.

Thus, the subpoena in issue conformed to the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

II. THE SUBPOENA WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF PROCESS

Under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties to litigation may discover all relevant, non-privileged information. A party:

may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. The information sought need not be admissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Emphasis added.)

Discovery of Ms. Seidel, who received the subpoena here in issue, was due to the suspicion that Ms. Seidel is being assisted by the defendant, directly or indirectly, in an effort to obstruct justice.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia may use its inherent power to punish litigation misconduct with the ultimate sanction of default where the improper conduct has seriously interfered with a litigant’s ability to present their case. See: Shepherd v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 62 F.3d 1469, 1473 (9th Cir., 1995). Indeed, “the judiciary-especially the court before which the primary misbehavior took place-may exercise its supervisory power to make it clear that the misconduct was serious, …and that steps must be taken to avoid a recurrence of this chain of events.” United States v. Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir.1991).

Therefore, the extent and origin of Ms. Seidel’s information about this case and its participants was relevant to issues before the Eastern District of Virginia. Indeed, 42 U.S.C. 1985-2 provides:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;

This case is in a Court of the United States. This statute is directed at preventing the intimidation of any witness in any case pending in such a court. Forbidden harassment is proved where there is: (1) a conspiracy by the defendants; (2) to injure a party or witness in his or her person or property; (3) because he or she attended federal court or testified in any matter pending in federal court; (4) resulting in injury or damages to the plaintiff. 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2); cf. Chahal v. Paine Webber Inc., 725 F.2d 20, 23 (2d Cir.1984).

Dr. Mark Geier, has been the subject of a concerted campaign of harassment, including actions injuring his business, his professional reputation and indeed challenges to his medical license, all due to his participation in this action and perhaps others, all in the Courts of the United States. The complaint about his license was filed by an associate of Ms. Seidel, fulfilling the requirement that the injury be the result of a conspiracy. But, Ms. Seidel proudly declares on her web site that she is assisted by others. Therefore:

…plaintiffs who “have proved that they were denied [employment opportunities as a result of a conspiracy] because they previously had instituted legal actions to vindicate their federal rights” have made out claims under section 1985, even where they had no constitutionally protected property interest in the job. See Irizarry v. Quiros, 722 F.2d 869, 871 (1st Cir.1983); see also Wright v. No Skiter Inc., 774 F.2d 422 (10th Cir.1985) (plaintiff alleging that the defendants conspired to defeat his low bid for a contract in retaliation for his bringing a federal suit states a claim under § 1985(2)). As the court in Irizarry explained, “ ‘[p]roperty’ here must include any economic damage that would be recognized in an ordinary tort suit.” Id.

Portman v. County of Santa Clara, 995 F.2d 898, 999-910 (9th cir 1993). The First Circuit has held that this statute arises from “federal power to protect the processes of federal courts and the exercise of federal rights.” Irizarry v. Quiros, 722 F.2d 869, 871 (1st Cir. 1983).

Ms. Seidel’s easy access to all information about this case and its participants, gives rise to the suspicion that some of her co-conspirators are agents of the defendant. If so, the defendant’s goal is despoliation of evidence, i.e. destroying plaintiff’s experts’ ability to publish, or to practice medicine and, in addition, to ruin them financially. “(T)he word “witness” liberally to mean not only a person who has taken the stand or is under subpoena but also one whom a party intends to call as a witness. Deterrence or intimidation of a potential witness can be just as harmful to a litigant as threats to a witness who has begun to testify.” Chahal v. Paine Webber Inc., 725 F.2d 20, 24 (2d, Cir, 1984).

Ms. Seidel claims to be a mere mother of an autistic child and housewife who is dedicated to the cause of not treating Autism as she believes it is not a result of a neurological defect or injury, but is a natural condition that should not be treated but left alone. She claims to be using only her own funds and a few meager donations to produce her web site. That posture is difficult to credit.

The case specific information she has access to as well as the personal information on the parties and witnesses is both difficult and expensive to obtain. Considering the breadth and scope of Ms. Seidel’s website (www.neurodiversity.com), it is not unreasonable for plaintiff’s counsel to believe it is supported in some part by the defendant or by some organization dedicated to harassing this plaintiff and her witnesses in order to discourage recourse to the Courts by anyone claiming that a vaccine injured a child. Ms. Seidel’s activity, described in the declarations of Rev. Sykes and Dr. Geier, is well across the line between lawful comment and a federal conspiracy. If she is receiving any material, information or aid from the defendant or its associates, sanctionable misconduct and perhaps obstruction of justice has occurred.

Ms. Seidel’s claim of first amendment and journalistic privilege is unfounded. In Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 99 S.Ct. 1635, 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979), the Court held that the First Amendment does not provide a journalist a privilege against discovery of the editorial process when the journalist is a defendant in a defamation case as such discovery is relevant to the issue of actual malice. Id. at 155, 169-70, 175, 99 S.Ct. 1635. Here, Ms. Seidel is not a journalist as to the activity in question. She is the self proclaimed leader of a conspiracy to obstruct justice and as such is not entitled to the limited privilege of a non-involved journalist, who is merely reporting the news.

Even a legitimate journalist may not assert the privilege where, as here, there is “a clear and specific showing that the information is: highly material and relevant, necessary or critical to the maintenance of the claim, and not obtainable from other available sources.” In re Petroleum Prods. Antitrust Litig., 680 F.2d 5, 7 (2d Cir.1982); and see discussion in Bruno Stillman, Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co., 633 F.2d 583, 595-97 (1st Cir.1980), Cusumano v. Microsoft Corp., 162 F.3d 708, 716 (1st Cir 1998).

In addition, Ms. Seidel has been at this for some time. Her malice toward litigants, their experts and attorneys and her intent to discourage access to the Courts is admitted and well known. Beyond actively joining in her conspiracy, 42 U.S.C. § 1986 renders anyone who has the ability to stop this activity, who does not do so, liable to any injured party for any injury sustained. Thus, the identity of persons feeding Ms. Seidel with information they know will be used by her to damage persons seeking access to the Courts, is relevant to the inquiry by an attorney of the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, a court who’s efforts to determine the truth have been hindered by Ms. Seidel. That Court has the authority to act to protect the integrity of its processes.

The inquiry this subpoena was designed to facilitate was the examination of material relevant to the extent of Ms. Seidel’s conspiracy to interfere with this case. Ms. Seidel’s records are the only source of such information, which would be highly relevant if any are associated with the defendant. Therefore, the subpoena was proper under Rule 26.

RULE 11

Rule 26 (5)(c)(1) provides that before a party or any person may file a motion for a protective order, they must certify that they have attempted to resolve any issue related to the subpoena. No such attempt was made here. While Ms. Seidel is not an attorney and claims to be representing herself, a claim also questionable due to the quality of her motion for a protective order, a Rule 11 claim cannot be entertained where no such attempt has been shown in this record.

Rule 11 requires that any motion for sanctions be served and it may not be filed until 21 days after such service to give the attorney or other person involved time to take corrective action if warranted. While this is an Order to Show Cause initiated by the Court, it must be considered in the context of the lack of notice of any of the issues raised by Ms. Seidel in her motion, which could have resulted in resolution if in fact the subpoena was excessive.

The rules also provide that the party issuing a subpoena must compensate the person for statutory costs and any cost involved in copying material sought. Thus, this subpoena could not have imposed any financial burden on Ms. Seidel. She had the right to demand payment of her actual copying expenses if any.

The subpoena is proper and was properly issued. If excessive in any particular way, that should have been dealt with by a discussion between Ms. Seidel and Mr. Shoemaker before any motion was filed.

CONCLUSION

For all the reasons stated above the subpoena was properly issued for a proper purpose. Rule 11 sanctions are not appropriate. The proceeding initiated by the Order to Show Cause should be dismissed.

May 12, 2008
JOHN F. MCHUGH
BRIAN T. STERN

Declaration of Clifford J. Shoemaker

Clifford J. Shoemaker, an attorney duly admitted to practice in the Courts of the State of Virginia and the District of Columbia, having offices at 9711 Meadowlark Road, Vienna, Va. 22182 declares as follows:

1. I am the attorney of record in this matter, which was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia and as such am familiar with this matter and with the facts related here. If called to testify I would testify competently as follows.

2. This action, which has been dismissed by agreement of the parties, involved the regression of Wesley Sykes into autism following the administration of HypRho-D to his mother during pregnancy and two years of vaccinations, many containing Thimerosal, a mercury based drug preservative. The action at the time of the subpoena was limited to Thimerosal in HypRho-D.

3. Since this action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, I have been made aware of a pattern of harassment of the principal plaintiff, Reverend Lisa Sykes, her son’s pediatrician Dr. Mary Megson, and expert witnesses, Dr. Mark Geier and his son David Geier, all by one Kathleen Seidel, who runs a web site called Neurodiversity.com.

4. When I was informed that Ms. Seidel had published some material, which was not a matter of public record, it became apparent that she was receiving help in her efforts from someone with access to material, which seemed to be in excess of that a non-party would usually have.

5. From the declarations of Dr. Mark Geier and Rev. Sykes the Court will see that Ms. Seidel’s efforts far exceed comment on the case or on its participants. She has actively injured or tried to injure persons due to their participation in this action in a Court of the United States.

6. Due to our suspicion that Ms. Seidel was either an agent of the defendant or of its industry, or that she was being given information by the defendant or an affiliated person, it was determined that proof of any such affiliation could be material to the issues at bar. Any attempt to destroy evidence or to obstruct justice by a pattern of harassment is itself evidence that the evidence destroyed would be unfavorable to the party seeking to suppress it.

7. The only way to establish whether Ms. Seidel is working for or with, or is receiving aid from the defendant or some affiliate, is to determine the identity of her sources of information, her funding and the identity of persons who have acted for her or have asked her to act. The subpoena sought that information and material which is believed to be the means to determine those facts. If indeed Ms. Seidel is just a mother working with limited funds to preach her particular gospel, compliance with the subpoena would prove that and it would be easy to comply with. If confidential information were involved, an appropriate stipulation or a confidentiality order would be appropriate. Only if there were a connection with the defendant in this action would any of this information be used and thus become public.

8. I am admitted in the Eastern District of Virginia, the District where this case was pending. I issued the subpoena from the District of New Hampshire as is provided for in Rule 45 (a)(3). Wherefore, the issuance of this subpoena was proper both as to the procedure used and as to its purpose, i.e. to discover evidence that is or could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action.

I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the above is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

May 12, 2008
CLIFFORD J. SHOEMAKER

Declaration of Lisa Sykes

1. I was a plaintiff in the captioned action, and, as such, am familiar with the facts recited below which are from my own knowledge, except where I am providing information which I have been told, in which case I believe the information to be true. Therefore, if called to testify in this matter, I would testify competently as follows:

2. I understand that this Court seeks to know why a subpoena was served upon Kathleen Seidel in this action. It is because we believe that Ms. Seidel is an agent of the defendant and other drug manufacturers used to intimidate potential plaintiffs and witnesses who seek access to the Courts of the United States due to injuries inflicted on their children by Thimerosal, a mercury based preservative used in vaccines and other drugs. This has had a direct effect on our ability to present this case and caused many potential witnesses to refuse to cooperate.

3. I am a United Methodist minister in Richmond, VA. My son Wesley is autistic, and I believe that his condition was caused by mercury which he received due to Thimerosal in the Rho(D) injection I was given during pregnancy and in many of the vaccines he received during his first two and a half years of life. I began seeking more information on the use of Thimerosal in vaccines and other drugs and its effect on our children from federal officials, and my husband and I filed a claim to that effect within the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. I understand that due to the number of claims filed by parents of autistic children within the Vaccine Injury program, the Office of Special Masters directed that all be included in an Omnibus proceeding, so that a few hearings could be held on the various theories of causation rather than separate hearings to weigh the causation claims thousands of times.

5. In 2002 in consultation with my attorneys and others involved in this type of claim, I became aware that civil court offered a greater opportunity for needed discovery, due to the rules governing the NVICP. I also became aware that the program was not an ideal setting to explore issues such as whether the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act had been violated by pharmaceutical companies and federal officials. Thus, I understood that Wesley’s case was removed from the program and in 2006, it was filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania where autism plaintiffs would have access to discovery as allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

6. Because of this litigation and then due to my faith-based advocacy, I have become a target for many of Ms. Seidel’s unfounded accusations. By examining the extent and detail of Ms. Seidel’s accusations, I believe that Ms. Seidel’s sources of information extend well beyond those of a mother and housewife, supported by a few donations, as she claims on her web site, Neurodiversity.com.

7. I became a target of Ms. Seidel’s attention for the first time on February 19, 2006, just before this case was filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania:

Also at that conference, a Methodist minister from Virginia, Rev. Lisa Sykes, offered an emotional testimonial about the results of “the Lupron protocol” on her autistic son. In her testimony, Rev. Sykes expressed her joy in the unfolding of her son’s communicative abilities; her fascination with the drastic fluctuations in his testosterone levels precipitated by the medication; her attribution of her son’s behavioral improvement to the “Lupron protocol”; her admiration for the Geiers; and her outrage that her son was presumably poisoned by thimerosal in his vaccines.

8. This entry on her website is part of a larger piece attacking the credibility of my son’s treating physicians: Dr. Mary Megson and Dr. Mark Geier, both of whom were experts in Wesley’s legal case, and Dr. Geier in the Omnibus proceeding, which was continuing and at that time included the claims of well over 3,000 children and now includes over 4,500. Ms. Seidel focused on this case as soon as it was filed in Pennsylvania, and it was obviously being carefully tracked. Her website announced:

In October 2002, Rev. and Mr. Sykes voluntarily withdrew their claim, and three months later gave notice of their intention to file a civil suit.

On March 14, 2006, Rev. and Mr. Sykes filed Lisa Sykes et al. v. Glaxo Smith-Kline et al. (Case 2:06-cv-01111-LS) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

9. Thereafter, everything about the case was published on her web site. A tremendous amount of information about me personally was also published, even including the devotion I wrote for the 2007 Lenten Devotional of the Virginia Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church. Some of that information was public; however, her knowledge of my personal life went beyond public knowledge or, at least, easy public knowledge, and surely represents a significant commitment of hours in researching me.

10. In 2006, an advocacy organization of which I was, and still remain, a part, CoMeD, filed a formal request that the FDA order that all mercury-containing drugs be recalled. The reply denying that request was date stamped Sept. 26, 2006. It was not posted on the FDA’s web site until October 24, 2006. Ms. Seidel published this letter on her web site on October 2, 2006 with links to every document referred to in the rejection letter. When it was placed on the FDA’s web site, 22 days later, the citations were not linked to the documents in issue. Thus, Ms. Seidel not only had the document well before it was available to the public, she had all the underlying documentation. Ms. Seidel, far from being the dedicated mother-housewife, working with her equally dedicated husband with limited funding, had access inside the FDA, investigative capacity well beyond that she claimed.

11. In this case, nearly every document was on her web site nearly the day it would have been received by the defendant’s attorneys. While documents filed with the Court are available to anyone having a Pacer Account, some documents she accessed were not filed in the court in which the case was filed, but she had those documents also.

12. Dr. Mark Geier was an expert witness in this matter as well as in the Omnibus Autism matter. He has testified in numerous other cases relating to vaccines. Dr. Geier has been a principal target of Ms. Seidel. I understand that his license to practice medicine has been challenged by a friend of Ms. Seidel, apparently the wife of a drug company executive based upon allegations of misconduct found on Ms. Seidel’s web site. Ms. Seidel and her husband have apparently obtained control of Wikipedia, a free internet encyclopedia, and have used that to injure Dr. Geier’s reputation. I am also aware that Ms. Seidel launched a campaign directed at TAP, the manufacturer of Lupron, a drug Dr. Geier is using to decrease the symptoms of autism in children with high testosterone levels. Ms. Seidel bragged about having dissuaded the company from participating in that study due to the Geier’s role in this cases and others:

Non-involvement seemed prudent, given the Geiers’ profession as legal consultants to plaintiffs in vaccine-injury cases…

13. I understand, as a result of that campaign, the manufacturer backed out of a double blind study of the Lupron Protocol Dr. Geier had developed. This directly interfered with Dr. Geier’s business interests but is a greater tragedy than that. My son is the first child to receive Dr. Geier’s Protocol, and as the result, he is greatly improved. While Ms. Seidel is fanatically opposed to any treatment of autism related to vaccine toxicity, it is clear from the malice shown in all of her writings, that her actions against Dr. Geier go well beyond debate. They are designed to destroy him professionally, personally and financially due to his being a witness in this and other cases. Her actions are also denying children a form of treatment that might benefit them tremendously by blocking and thus postponing clinical trials indefinitely. Ms. Seidel claims to oppose only unproven treatments of autism, but all treatments follow tests to determine if an apparently favorable result of a procedure or drug can be repeated in numerous subjects. Here, Ms. Seidel has kept that test from being performed at all in order to punish Dr. Geier for his being a witness in this and other cases.

14. Ms. Seidel has sought to discredit me and my faith-based efforts to get mercury banned from medicine, in a campaign directed at my denomination. First and foremost, my Bishop and all the key denominational officials involved with my efforts in the United Methodist Church were at all times well aware of my son’s condition and my legal and extra legal efforts, first to get answers and then to act, including this lawsuit, both within the VICP and then in the United States Courts. Therefore, Ms. Seidel’s repeated inference that I have a hidden agenda, that I was hiding these facts from my Church or that the Church was hiding this from the public was at all times defamatory as she is stating that I am dishonest.

15. In 2004, I began a successful three and a half year effort to bring the issue of mercury in medicine before my denomination. This began with my careful and intentional efforts to inform the Virginia Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church regarding the dangers of mercury in medicine, and then to lead it to pass a resolution in 2005 calling for “Protecting Children from Mercury-containing Drugs.” Afterward, in 2006, the Women’s Division of the General Board of Global Ministries, a global organization of nearly 1 million United Methodist Women, passed a similar resolution, and in 2007, the Women’s Division actively began to give witness to this issue by sponsoring a teach-in in Atlanta, Georgia, on June 7, and sharing in a parent-sponsored rally at the gates of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on June 8.

16. Ms. Seidel’s commentary against all these faith-based efforts followed the filing of this action in Pennsylvania. It had the effect of impugning me to those in my denomination with oversight for my conduct of my ministry. She also insinuated that I have misused my pastoral office in a far-fetched attempt, which she asserts I mischaracterized as a “valiant search for justice,” to manipulate my denomination for the specific purpose of bilking pharmaceutical companies of millions of dollars:

Rev. Sykes has represented her campaign as a struggle between good and evil, a valiant crusade to protect the most vulnerable individuals in society from heartless, indefensible baby poisoners, a battle against dark forces responsible for perpetrating heinous crimes against humanity and stealing from children “the future that God intends for them.” The situation is not so simple as that. The current litigation-inspired “vaccine safety” crusade is also a for-profit enterprise in which Rev. Sykes and her colleagues have a significant financial stake. That stake — as well as the full range of arguments and evidence relevant to the “vaccine safety” debate — should be fully disclosed to all persons invited to consider her arguments, the evidence she presents to support them, and the “experts” upon whom she relies.

17. Not only does Ms. Seidel accuse me of withholding information from my superiors about the lawsuit, a charge which is patently false, but she also grandly suggests that my Bishop, the Women’s Division, and others have improperly discharged their offices by supporting my efforts to make vaccines safer:

• Does the United Methodist Church and Women’s Division require that its leadership and staff disclose conflicts of interest with respect to their church-related responsibilities?

• Have either Rev. Sykes or Kelly Kerns ever fully disclosed the extent of their involvement in vaccine-injury litigation to the congregations, Methodist colleagues and superiors to whom they appealed for support of their “vaccine safety” campaign? Was Women’s Division executive Julie Taylor aware of Rev. Sykes’ status as plaintiff in a twenty million dollar product liability lawsuit, or aware of the size of her legal team, when she planned and announced the upcoming “educational event,” described families who subscribe to unproven theories of autism causation as “marginalized,” and characterized their efforts as a “search for truth” and “questioning”?…

• Did Rev. Sykes disclose to the United Methodist Church and Women’s Division the fact that the “team of researchers” who spoke at their press conference are all consultants to plaintiffs in vaccine-injury litigation, and that their claims and methods are accorded little credence within the medical and scientific community? Did Bishop Kammerer exercise due diligence prior to committing church resources to support Rev. Sykes’ campaign, and prior to using the authority of her position to lend credibility to and create media opportunities for Rev. Sykes’ expert witness associates?

18. Ms. Seidel’s efforts have damaged me personally, as intended. Recently, the senior pastor at the church to which I am currently appointed by my Bishop, suggested to me that the congregation might not request my reappointment for the following year, as some congregation members had taken exception to my advocacy work on the issue of mercury. In addition, a new member of the church who heard that I was in an upcoming PBS documentary on the issue, walked into my office some weeks ago, and said, “There are some really mean things about you on the Internet.” I would wager that these members have searched the internet and read Ms. Seidel’s posts, as the church publicity on my advocacy work has only affirmed me in my efforts.

19. Wesley’s entire medical team also became targets of Ms. Seidel’s efforts due to their support for our claim and me personally. After they had spoken at a press conference sponsored by the Virginia Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, Ms. Seidel wrote:

“To the Council of Bishops, the General Board of Global Ministries, the General Board of Church and Society, and the Women’s Division of the United Methodist Church, and the Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy(…)”

I urge the United Methodist Church and Women’s Division to consider the possibility that Rev. Lisa Sykes and her team of legal and medical advisers might be sincerely mistaken in their conclusions regarding the cause of autism; that their quest for multi-million-dollar money damages and assumption of bad faith on the part of many specific and nonspecific targets of blame, may have impaired their judgment and capacity for objectivity; and that a campaign that appears to support a valiant search for justice conducted by righteously aggrieved underdogs may in fact support a dogged search for validation of a scientifically insupportable idée fixe by those determined to exact retribution for imagined injustices, and determined to prevail in debate and high-stakes litigation regardless of the merit of their arguments.

20. Subsequently, when she was unable to deter the church leadership from its intensifying advocacy on this issue, Ms. Seidel complained, in a letter to Julie Taylor, Exe[cutive] Sec[retary] for Children, Youth and Family Advocacy:

Nowhere in these materials have you disclosed the fact that the United Methodist Church employee responsible for initiating the UMC “vaccine safety” campaign has a substantial financial interest in the outcome of pending litigation directly related to the subject of that campaign. By dismissing the significance of Rev. Sykes’ own conflicts of interest, you and your colleagues have created one of your own.

Did Rev. Sykes disclose to you and your colleagues the fact that the “team of researchers” who spoke at your press conference are all consultants to plaintiffs in vaccine-injury litigation, and that their claims and methods are accorded little credence within the medical and scientific community?

You have characterized Rev. Sykes’ quest with gentle, righteous euphemisms such as “searching for truth,” “questioning,” “asking,” and “judicial advocacy.” Her quest can also be characterized as the pious public facade of a coordinated campaign by a coalition of plaintiffs, lawyers and entrepreneurs who promote the idea that the majority of cases of autism are caused by vaccine-injury as part of an aggressive attempt to extract money damages from innocent parties for imagined wrongdoing. This effort is supported by scientific “evidence” much of which was manufactured after the initiation of litigation by individuals with a demonstrable financial interest in the promotion of unproven autism treatments and the perpetuation of conflict over vaccines, and some of which is of highly questionable provenance.

You have denied any intention of helping Rev. Sykes seek compensation through legal action; by your actions, you and your colleagues are doing exactly that.

Ms. Seidel clearly suggests: that I have deceived the Church, that I have ulterior financial motives for involving the church in my “crusade,” that my experts are participating in this “pious public facade,” and that agencies of the church itself are now aiding me in my deceptive efforts to extract money unjustly from the pharmaceutical companies. These accusations were sent to a tremendously long list of United Methodist bishops and to every relevant church agency Ms. Seidel could name. My profession is based on faith. Integrity and accountability are key characteristics absolutely required to be a minister. These accusations, had they been given credence, could have ended not only my advocacy work but also my viability in an itinerant form of ordained ministry, i.e. my current employment and my employability generally.

21. In the face of Ms. Seidel’s accusations, it was decided that the General Board of Global Ministries would not make any comment on the issue of mercury in medicine at that time and that only a representative of the Women’s Division would respond to Ms. Seidel. I am grateful that my denomination remained undeterred, and even has since passed the first faith-based global resolution, “Protecting Children from Mercury-containing Drugs,” on April 29, 2008.

22. I have spoken to a large number of parents of autistic and other children who believe that their children have been injured by vaccines, and the mercury-based component thimerosal. Many report that they first could not find a lawyer willing to handle their claim and then, that their doctor(s) was/were reluctant to testify even in the few cases where the doctor suggested that the vaccine was the most likely cause of the disorder. I have witnessed financial support from the defendant and perhaps others in this now dismissed case, directly or indirectly.

24. Thus, activity such as that of Ms. Seidel is having the effect of not only discouraging research and treatment of mercury-induced illness, she is preventing children from being able to prove their claims by dissuading witnesses from participating in appropriate lawsuits by a pattern of malicious harassment.

25. Ms. Seidel’s activity has caused me to have to explain and/or defend my actions for my son to the leaders of my church and to some members of my congregation. With each published attack on me, I have diligently notified my own bishop and Ms. Julie Taylor, of the Women’s Division of the General Board of Global Ministries. I have upheld the good character and rectitude of Wesley’s doctors to those in my hierarchy prior to their speaking at the teach-in on mercury in medicine sponsored by our church. Dr. Geier and his son have been required to defend their reputations, including defending against a complaint filed against Dr. Geier’s medical license. All of this is apparently an attempt to punish them for their participation in this issue, and especially in Wesley’s lawsuit, and to intimidate anyone else who files or participates in such a claim.

26. I understand that the purpose of this subpoena was to explore whether Ms. Seidel was getting any support in her efforts to harass our witnesses and myself from the defendants. I understand that such harassment would have been extremely relevant to this matter as a United States Court has the right to defend the integrity of its processes.

I declare this 12th day of May at Richmond Virginia, under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

LISA SYKES

Declaration of Mark Geier

1. I am a medical doctor, hold a Ph.D. in genetics, am a fellow of the American College of Medical Genetics, and am a fellow of the American College of Epidemiology. I have published more than 100 scientific/medical studies. I have practiced clinical medicine for more than 25 years and I am licensed to practice medicine in the States of Maryland and Virginia. I was a witness in the captioned matter and I have appeared as an expert witness in numerous actions concerning adverse reactions to vaccinations. I have been the major target of the activity of Kathleen Seidel and if called to testify in this matter I would testify competently as follows:

2. I am the favorite target of Ms. Seidel. Her effect on her readers is well established by the following authored by one of them in a discussion of contributions to Wikipedia, the free internet encyclopedia:

I think it’s pretty incredible that, after decades renting himself to attorneys to attack vaccines, going way outside any plausible qualifications, sometimes giving ludicrous false testimony (eg “I must have missed a zero”), using a kitchen lab and bogus ethical approval to experiment on children, Mark Geier should complain about Kathleen’s credentials. She’s doing a great job.

86.129.110.60 19:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Her campaign has been continuous and malicious since I determined that there is substantial medical evidence that Thimerosal, a mercury laden compound used in many drugs at a preservative level is a cause of severe neurological damage to infants, including autism.

4. She has done an extensive study of my background. She inferred that I was paying a malpractice settlement, as if that was current. To the best of my knowledge in my twenty-eight years of being in private practice, I have been sued once as a physician in the early 1980s and once as a member of a Laboratory for which I worked in the early 1990s. Both of these suits occurred long ago and all were fully covered by insurance and none had anything to do with my work on vaccines.

5. Her efforts are more than mere disagreement with my opinions on vaccines. An associate of hers has filed a complaint against me with Maryland authorities based entirely upon her allegations about my attempts to treat children afflicted with autism. She was behind similar complaints filed with the FDA. Both complaints were related to and designed to adversely affect my work with Wesley Sykes.

6. She has campaigned to have my articles rejected by medical journals. This has delayed publication of my research, directly affecting my credibility as a witness. My articles are all peer reviewed which means that other medical professionals credited by the journal in question, have reviewed my research and found it credible.

7. I developed a protocol for the treatment of autism in those afflicted children with precocious puberty. These children tend to be violent and severely impaired. I found that these children have high levels of testosterone and that high levels of mercury in their tissue seemed to be associated with this. The Sykes family allowed me to be involved in the treatment of Wesley by administering Lupron. Wesley has made significant improvement following his treatment.

8. When this case was removed from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and filed against vaccine manufacturers and Bayer, a manufacturer of Rho(D)-immune globulin, I was working with the manufacturer of Lupron to set up tests to further evaluate the clinical benefits of Lupron therapy to patients with autistic disorders. Ms. Seidel launched a concerted campaign against the manufacturer which has apparently significantly impacted my relationship with the Lupron manufacturer

9. Other doctors I know of have seen the type of punishment imposed on doctors who will testify in vaccine cases and most will not testify as a result. Indeed, many doctors who have found a connection between vaccines and autism have been subject to disciplinary action of one kind or another. Thus the manufacturers do have substantial power and do obstruct efforts to investigate these issues. Our nation is now losing one child in every 150 to autism, four boys to each girl. This is a horrendous loss of talent and as many of these children will require lifetime care; this loss will impose huge costs on our society to say nothing of the moral cost if these injuries are preventable. The efforts of the manufacturers/Ms. Seidel to obstruct justice in this case mirror their successful efforts to impede research to determine the cause of this epidemic. Ms. Seidel marches to their drum and her role in this was relevant to this matter. If there is no liability, why would anyone seek to hide the evidence?

10. The scope of Ms. Seidel’s capacity to dig up material on my past is incredible. I do not believe that she could do this without a lot of help. While I understand that she may be just a dedicated parent, but the cost of accessing some of these records is high. I also believe, after being the subject of her scrutiny for several years, that she may be receiving materials from industry investigators. She has information I would expect to face on cross examination by a well prepared attorney. A deposition would establish only if there is any connection between her and the defendant and that includes determining the source of her information and funds. She seems to have that information about me and I understand that such information is very hard to obtain.

11. Ms. Seidel asserts that she believes that autism is a natural human condition and should not be treated. She, however, says she does not oppose approved treatment. Approved treatment is always some protocol, which is discovered by accident or by the use of human trials on a theoretical possibility. She fanatically opposes any treatment which is at all related to the possibility that mercury is associated with autism. It is inconceivable that any person would oppose treatments, which would moderate the disabling effects of autism or any other condition. It is very hard to believe that she is self motivated to support whole heartedly the position of the manufacturers that not only is there no connection between autism and mercury but that no research as to that possibility is to be allowed.

12. As I do a lot of work in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program I can state with some authority that there are less than twenty law firms nation wide willing to handle these cases as they are not sufficiently rewarding financially Few doctors will testify for the same reason and due to the type of abuse Ms. Seidel provides as an apparent agent of the industry, to say nothing of the industries control of research funds which gives them terrific leverage over any doctor affiliated with the major teaching hospitals. Therefore, there is no question that she and her co-conspirators seek to discourage anyone from filing suits relating to mercury in vaccines and other drugs and certainly keeps expert witnesses from assisting.

Wherefore, I believe it is relevant to determine whether Ms. Seidel is receiving support from the defendant in any of these lawsuits for the purpose of attempting to obstruct justice. As Ms. Seidel has targeted the Sykes and their witnesses, it was particularly relevant to that matter.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true to the best of my knowledge and believe

May 12, 2008
MARK GEIER, M.D., PH.D., FACMG, FACE

Comments


  1. “Faced with the specific harassment of witnesses and parties to this lawsuit, by a person utilizing investigative ability well in excess of that available to the mother and housewife she claims to be,”

    omg, how sexist! Apparently they think a mother and housewife can’t be smart!

    — Navi    2008-05-18 11:19    #

  2. If you are the mastermind behind this conspiracy, can I join. I would like steel teeth, however, and if your Evil Conspiracy Dental Plan does not cover that, I’ll have to pass.

    Seriously, what does this mean? Is this something that could make the subpeona active, or is this just an attempt for them to defend their actions and prevent them from getting slapped by the judge?

    — Badger3k    2008-05-18 11:26    #

  3. If “[i]t is believed that Ms. Seidel has been assisted in her efforts by the defendant, directly or indirectly alone or in concert with other manufacturers of these drugs,” why don’t they subpoena the drug companies to reveal their links with Neurodiversity.com?

    — mike stanton    2008-05-18 11:41    #

  4. I’m reading further, Mark can’t imagine someone would want to attack a treatment if they were just an individual affected by autism…

    However, I really would love it if they stopped pouring most of the money into finding causes so they can ‘cure’ it and instead dump it into treatments other than aba (such as sensory therapy, music therapy, etc etc) put money into investigating further the different kinds of cases of autism, put money into providing treatment for current people with autism. The constant flow of studies showing no link between vaccines and autism is frustrating, because it all looks like wasted money to me.

    — Navi    2008-05-18 12:01    #

  5. Now its clear to me who is paying Mr. Shoemaker and his counsel. It’s Dr. Geier.

    — CS    2008-05-18 12:03    #

  6. Kind of curious they say they "believe" Kathleen (and the defendants) are guilty of such egregious judicial misconduct that

    The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia may use its inherent power to punish litigation misconduct with the ultimate sanction of default where the improper conduct has seriously interfered with a litigant’s ability to present their case.

    yet they agree to dismiss the action before getting any "evidence" to substantiate those "beliefs" which they suggest could win their case for them by default.

    If they believe that the defendants are part of this conspiracy (which is the only thing that makes it a conspiracy that is the slightest bit relevant to the case), the proper thing to do is to seek discovery from the defendants.

    What ever it is they accuse Kathleen of, it is quite clear that the Mercury Militia is guilty of. What kind of "harassment" has Offit been subjected to by the Mercury Militia? It is my understanding that death threats are somewhat worse harassment than publishing materials that are factually correct.

    Interesting that they track the days on which material appears at Kathleen's website.

    It is also interesting that Shoemaker claims that if Kathleen had no connection to the defendants that none of what she produced would ever be made public. That was not the experience on the Report on Hannah Poling. Someone privy to the case where Shoemaker was the attorney gave it to David Kirby who published it. Similarly didn't someone publish the DeSoto reanalysis of the Ip et al data before the embargo date of the journal it was being published in?

    — daedalus2u    2008-05-18 12:22    #

  7. Holy conspiracy theories Batman!

    Can I go for a ride in your black helicopter Kathleen?

    — Do'C    2008-05-18 12:25    #

  8. If this is all about the drug companies, why don’t they subpoena them, instead of Kathleen and her entire blogroll?

    — Amanda    2008-05-18 13:03    #

  9. I think this is so manifestly absurd that it makes John Best look sane by comparison.

    The guy has metaphorically shot himself in the foot never mind shat in his own pants because he has effectively established himself as more incredible than Veliskovsky, Won Daniken and David Icke put together (I once met David Icke, he failed to spot that I am a twelve foot lizard)

    Of course Mr Shoemaker may not be perjuring himself there is the possibility that he is so deluded that he is simply no longer fit to practice and should therefore submit himself for compulsory chelation.

    Sue the bastard see how he likes it :)

    — laurentius-rex    2008-05-18 13:20    #

  10. Utterly ridiculous. I’m trying to understand the extent of their arguments. They seem to be:

    - House wifes are generally non-competent at any investigative endeavors or activism.

    - Persons should not be allowed to write letters to the editors of journals.

    - Dave Seidel has taken over Wikipedia.

    - They cannot imagine why anyone would oppose unproven treatments of autism.

    Oh man, I look forward to your response, and to the judge’s ruling.

    — Joseph    2008-05-18 14:22    #

  11. You seized control of Wikipedia? You are truly a force to be reckoned with.

    You and 75,000 others.

    — Skeptico    2008-05-18 14:40    #

  12. Kathleen,

    clearly, you are wearing penny loafers ;)

    Well done!

    — Catherina    2008-05-18 14:51    #

  13. What frightens these people is the loss of potential money – a lot of it. Keep up the great work Kathleen, you and your wiki-pwning husband.

    And regarding the bigotry bit – is anyone surprised? The only thing that surprises me is that they didn’t use a term like “even Muslim housewife” or something like that.

    — Bartholomew Cubbins    2008-05-18 14:57    #

  14. You must be a member of the Illuminati!! How else would someone under the guise of a cooking and cleaning baby factory have such far reaching abilities that makes a mockery of the judicial system …

    — Memo Juez    2008-05-18 16:04    #

  15. I hope the judge writes a scathing commentary when imposing sanctions. This is ludicrous beyond words.

    — abfh    2008-05-18 16:27    #

  16. The Good Reverend’s crusade against thimerosal has put her job in danger, and she thinks this is Kathleen’s fault?

    Kathleen is a fanatic about one thing, and that is scrupulous adherence to demonstrable facts. She never makes an inference without abundant evidence to back it up. I doubt many newspaper reporters could match her restraint in that regard.

    — isles    2008-05-18 17:44    #

  17. Notably absent from Cliff’s homework is any substantial evidence. He alludes to blog posts that would have preceded PACER filings, and to non-public documents, but he doesn’t present any.

    No wonder he wouldn’t dream of bothering the judge with a far-fetched accusation of witness tampering conspiracy, before securing proof, with bogus subpoenas!

    “We have plenty of hearsay and conjecture, those are KINDS of evidence !?” —Lionel Hutz, esq, The Simpsons

    — _Arthur    2008-05-18 17:57    #

  18. What a colossal additional waste of your time. But at least it makes their tactics further a matter of public record.

    — Phil Schwarz    2008-05-18 18:16    #

  19. Seriously, of all the people they picked on, they really weren’t thinking when they went after such a thorough researcher and eloquent arguer. At least it shows EVEN MORE how untenable their evidence was.

    About exerting subversive control over wikipedia — ROFLOL.

    — Melody    2008-05-18 18:43    #

  20. This is what many people believe is going on with the mercury parents and a subset of them, the harassing mercury malicia:
    “… might be sincerely mistaken in their conclusions regarding the cause of autism; that their quest for multi-million-dollar money damages and assumption of bad faith on the part of many specific and nonspecific targets of blame, may have impaired their judgment and capacity for objectivity; and that a campaign that appears to support a valiant search for justice conducted by righteously aggrieved underdogs may in fact support a dogged search for validation of a scientifically insupportable idée fixe by those determined to exact retribution for imagined injustices, and determined to prevail in debate and high-stakes litigation regardless of the merit of their arguments.’

    Why didn’t Shoemaker file charges against Bayer for interfering with witnesses?

    I hope the judge hands these people their heads and I hope Cliffy faces serious sanctions.

    I hope Geier loses his Medical license. The Maryland Medical Board should have acted to protect children a couple of years ago!

    I hope that it will be possible to sue these bozos for defamation of character.

    Also, how is it that you are too stupid to write the things that you do on your own, but you are smart enough that Bayer corp and possibly Big Pharma in general has sought you ought and is trusting you to represent them, help them to harass witnesses and not let on that you are getting info from them?

    And how was it that you let this stuff slip so that the victims of the conspiracy figured it out? And how come they didn’t just charge you directly with witness tampering?

    Yeah, they need to be sued for a few tens of millions of dollars for defamation, in my opinion.

    — Ms. Clark    2008-05-18 19:22    #

  21. Dang—they are on to you! Sorry, but I keep seeing Jack Nicholson in the Batman movie where he says “Where does he get those wonderful toys?”

    If there were only some place where they could find out about your hidden skills…

    How could a wife/mother ever come to find all this information…

    I seem to recall reading, “I seek to use my skills as a librarian and web developer…”

    Perhaps I’ll use “Wikipedia” to look up “librarian”.

    — Matt    2008-05-18 22:04    #

  22. Dear me – the compliments are prolific in their protestations. Who knew a mere housewife could have such effect? I particularly enjoyed the ‘she must have had help’ based on the quality of the quash motion. Maybe we ought to get the feminist movement all riled up:)

    And Rev Sykes has managed to alienate the congregation? Then perhaps it will be rather difficult for her to use her office to campaign for the castration of small children based on nothing more than the wish of parents that their autistic offspring never enter into puberty.

    — Alyric    2008-05-18 22:27    #

  23. KathleenandDave@conspiracy.com

    Hey guys,

    Glad you fooled the judge.

    Next week why don’t you have Dave put a picture of Cliff up on Wikipedia under the heading of “Bozo”.

    The checks in the mail.

    Regards,

    Manfred S.
    Bayer Corp.

    — Club 166    2008-05-18 22:29    #

  24. Mr. M CHUGH (I believe) writ:
    “The complaint about his license was filed by an associate of Ms. Seidel, fulfilling the requirement that the injury be the result of a conspiracy. But, Ms. Seidel proudly declares on her web site that she is assisted by others”

    So if Ms. Seidel is in the habit of conspiring with associates to break various laws, how is it that anyone knows who is her “associate” and why on earth would she proclaim that she was being “assisted by others.”

    Why doesn’t he mention that “Ms. Seidel” has a masters in library science and why doesn’t he quote the places where she claims this “assistance from others” so we can see if he’s just making that up or ???

    I wonder why it was left to a citizen to report Geier to the Maryland Medical Board? The guy has been openly practicing dangerous experimental medicine on kids for quite a while. Not to mention sonny boy’s doing things that only doctors are supposed to do according to Geier’s patients.

    And speaking of sonny boy , how come he never went back into a PhD program?

    — Ms. Clark    2008-05-18 23:45    #

  25. Oh my. Perhaps somebody should let Shoemaker know that the 19th century ended some time ago.

    — bullet    2008-05-19 09:07    #

  26. Looks like a job for Super Librarian!
    http://www.njlibraries.org/
    (Librarians are totally underappreciated.)

    — Junior    2008-05-19 09:20    #

  27. Kathleen, thanks for making all of us “mere housewives and mothers” look so good! My mind is boggled at their conspiracy theories. They are truly paranoid.

    — storkdok    2008-05-19 11:02    #

  28. “3. Ms. Seidel’s principal co-conspirator, her husband, has apparently seized control of a web encyclopedia”

    BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    gasp, splutter…deary me…

    BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

    “Seidel’s activity, described in the declarations of Rev. Sykes and Dr. Geier, is well across the line between lawful comment and a federal conspiracy.”

    HAHAHAA!!!

    Please…make it stop…

    “Recently, the senior pastor at the church to which I am currently appointed by my Bishop, suggested to me that the congregation might not request my reappointment for the following year, as some congregation members had taken exception to my advocacy work on the issue of mercury.”

    Well done Kathleen – you definitely reached the saner portions of Sykes flock.

    — Kev    2008-05-19 11:04    #

  29. Sykes, Shoemaker and Geier are relying on a law – 42 U.S.C. section 1985(2) – that was originally enacted as part of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, to protect former slaves and their supporters from various forms of Klan violence. I thought that was an interesting and ironic historical tidbit.

    — Anne    2008-05-19 13:32    #

  30. Something that puzzles me here: even supposing that all of these (ridiculous) suppositions were true, how is it relevant to the case for which the subpoena was issued?

    — Anthony    2008-05-19 13:32    #

  31. Utterly ridiculous. I see they used the most benign statement of the elements of 1985(2) possible, avoiding statements that specified that interference had to be by force or intimidation. Also, it looks as if there may be a split of the circuits as to whether 1985(2) requires racial animus like 1985(3). Blogged here

    — Ken    2008-05-19 15:08    #

  32. Anthony said “how is it relevant to the case for which the subpoena was issued?”

    You mean this one:
    http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/155/ ?

    It is not. It is pure harassment. Though noting some of the comments, it seems that Kathleen’s persistent research and blogging is detrimental to their finances.

    Though it seems any future embarrassment and financial loss may be of their own doing.

    — HCN    2008-05-19 15:36    #

  33. I would still like to know how I can sting this vexatious litigant from my position in the UK, and force him to answer for his perjury and perversion of the course of justice in a legal regime where he could be jailed for his malice aforethought.

    Extraordinary rendition anyone, surely the illuminati and big pharma could pull that off.

    If the shoe fits wear it. Are you listening Shoemaker me old pal me old beauty?

    — laurentius-rex    2008-05-19 15:53    #

  34. If exposition of the truth, and expressing an opinion is harrasment, then we have moved beyond decent legal system representation into the realm of a more totalitarian police state, in my opinion.

    Time to watch out, the Thought Police can’t be far behind.

    /sarcasm off

    Well Kat, I have to congratulate you and your team on its perserverative efforts to bring what I beleive to be the Truth to light.

    Patrick

    — Patrick    2008-05-19 15:55    #

  35. “Ms. Seidel need not respond to the ‘Response of Clifford J. Shoemaker… to the Order to Show Cause…’ However, she may respond if she chooses to do so on or before May 27, 2008. James R. Muirhead, United States Magistrate Judge.”

    It occurs to me that this blog post would be sufficient response to the Judge, if read carefully, and s/he were able to access the links provided. BTW, I found many of them quite humorous, and I really want to spend some time reading that Wiki “List of Cabals” link. ;-)

    — Clay    2008-05-20 01:05    #

  36. Of all the ludicrous charges against you and “your associates”, seizing control of Wikipedia is just so, so wrong that it’s hilarious.

    — Maria    2008-05-20 07:39    #

  37. Your account of this is glorious to behold.

    — Cobalt    2008-05-20 08:35    #

  38. It appears that they do not know logic.

    — Jaimie    2008-05-20 09:39    #

  39. I’ve had absolute control of Drudge Report and eBay for years, so it isn’t that far-fetched.

    Time to take ma pills.

    — Lucas McCarty    2008-05-20 10:42    #

  40. Sorry everybody, I guess I just don’t know my own strength. I promise that my reign over Wikipedia will be a benevolent one. Just don’t tell Jimmy Wales, ok?

    — Dave Seidel    2008-05-20 11:37    #

  41. Kathleen

    A view from across the pond: all I can say is it’s a pity the Pulitzers haven’t caught up with the online Citizen Journalism revolution. You deserve a Prize twice over for the way you have aired out the seedy profiteering of this deluded cabal. More power to your mouse and search engine.

    — Dr Aust    2008-05-20 14:13    #

  42. What a wonderful use of hyperlinks as commentary! Also, great work on the legal side of things, you mere housewife, you!

    — Ahistoricality    2008-05-20 14:43    #

  43. I’m sorry you’ve had to deal with all these legal hassles, but thanks so much for the entertainment: those documents are hilarious.

    Aside from the comedy value, though, does anyone else think that Shoemaker, Sykes and Geier have just helpfully described the types of investigations and reporting that are most disruptive to their autism-related campaigning, ‘research’ and litigation?

    — Jon    2008-05-20 15:40    #

  44. A Jon says, it is like a blueprint for what vexes and baffles these people most. It’s like the Onion segment about the leaked election result and the apology to the lizard overlords

    — Mary    2008-05-20 15:48    #

  45. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGxdgNJ_lZM

    Totally lacking in Textile skills – sorry.

    — Mary    2008-05-20 15:52    #

  46. Thinking more about Shoemaker’s statement, it looks more and more like is is filled with psychological projection. That Shoemaker is actually guilty of what he is accusing Kathleen (and Bayer and the other defendants of), that of a conspiracy to intimidate witnesses.
    Certainly Offit and many other scientists have had death threats made against them. Finding how many degrees of separation there are between those folks and Shoemaker would be very interesting.

    Since Shoemaker’s “crime” consists of First Amendment stuff, a First Amendment sanction would fit it.

    Shoemaker has held press conferences on the Hannah Poling case (after he said he wasn’t going to). Privileged documents in the Hannah Poling case were released to David Kirby.

    The Judge is asking for Kathleen’s input as to what appropriate sanctions would be. I think that forcing Shoemaker to disclose the conspiracies he is involved in, the reporters he has given non-publicly available information to, the “researchers” he has hired to produce the results he wanted.

    I think that would be the most appropriate sanction. If Shoemaker isn’t guilty of giving privileged documents to Kirby, then Shoemaker would have nothing to disclose (fat chance).

    There is a problem for Shoemaker though. If he is guilty of what he accuses Kathleen of, then he is actually guilty of obstruction of justice and witness tampering. If the Judge ordered him to disclose those connections, would he plead the Fifth Amendment? Do the sanctions hearing then become a disbarment proceedings?

    — daedalus2u    2008-05-20 22:11    #

  47. Kathleen,
    I am an example of why women should not be allowed to do any thing out side of the traditional roles assigned to them. My mother, fearing that no woman would ever have anything to do with me, taught me basic sewing, cooking, ironing, household plumbing, Wiring, and carpentry. When the doctors said that my, whatever they called hyperactive in 1950, state should be treated with barbiturates, she told them they were nuts and just fed me in the bathtub and, took me to the beach and let me burn off the energy. Worst of all, she encouraged, yes encouraged !!, my sense of curiosity!!! She even forcible taught me to catch a baseball when I was feeling inadequate for not being able to do so! Her name was Lily Edith Meyer. I miss her.
    For all our children’s sake’s I thank you.
    Robert B. Estrada

    — Robert B. Estrada    2008-05-20 22:12    #

  48. I agree: there should be a Pulitzer for “best commentary via Wikipedia links.” It’s a disturbing situation, but such a clever comeback (and for a housewife!) that I had to laugh.

    Thank you for helping to get the truth out.

    — Carrie    2008-05-20 22:41    #

  49. “a person utilizing investigative ability well in excess of that available to the mother and housewife “ I love that mothers and housewives are SO STUPID that they can’t learn how to use search engines. What a misogynistic a$$.

    — SusieJ    2008-05-21 08:55    #

  50. I for one welcome our new Seidelian overlords.

    — John C. Welch    2008-05-21 12:02    #

  51. Actually Wikipedia has been sabotaged, it is not a reliable artefact at all, there are a lot of articles that are merely changing hands in a war of ideas and other that are simply superanuated plagiarism from out of copyright encyclopediae.

    For instance the neurodiversity page has been savagely cut in the supposed interests of pedantry because it is a “neologism” and pray tell me what words since the advent of Shakespeare’s expansion of the language are not?

    No our enemy walketh abroad like a roaring lion devouring who they will.

    Anyone care to restore the page or even continue the discussion or is a dodo?

    I helped to define neurodiversity as a term around 2000 (various arguments with DANDA ensuing)

    Blume didn’t invent it, he purloined it, merely cited what was already coinage.

    Singer may have been the first in mainstream print.

    The archives of the internet are not complete by any means, much has been lost with the passage of time, including earlier uses of the term totally outwith the field of rights at all. I saw an alternative use once in a scientific paper, but that was too way back to recall.

    — laurentius-rex    2008-05-21 12:20    #

  52. “For instance the neurodiversity page has been savagely cut in the supposed interests of pedantry because it is a “neologism” and pray tell me what words since the advent of Shakespeare’s expansion of the language are not?”

    I noticed that the term neurodiversity is no longer attributed to Judy Singer there. She has pretty good evidence that she coined it, although I guess it’s hard to track its usage back to her.

    — Joseph    2008-05-21 13:20    #

  53. First, let me correct Dr. Geier: “Our nation is now losing one child in every 150 to autism, four boys to each girl.”

    My son is not “lost”. This nation is lucky to have him.

    The Rev. Sykes seems to take issue with the word “crusade”. Odd, I can’t find a complaint letter filed after this news story ran in multiple outlets.

    Dr. Geier is invited to submit as evidence commentary from the Special Masters of the US Court of Federal Claims. There are numerous discussions there of his skills as an expert witness. I have not seen them cite neurodiversity.com once to make these claims. I.e. Dr. Geier appears to have earned a questionable reputation all on his own.

    I’m having difficulty with this phrase:
    “Both of these suits occurred long ago and all were fully covered by insurance and none had anything to do with my work on vaccines.”

    I’m sorry, is that a way of stating that he was liable?

    “I developed a protocol for the treatment of autism in those afflicted children with precocious puberty.“

    The court is kindly invited to view the videos of the Rev. Sykes and the Geiers discussing the protocol. My recollection is that no mention of “precocious puberty” is mentioned. I do recall that the Rev. Sykes noted that Mr (not Dr) David Geier was the one who offered to treat her son with this protocol (to get the mercury out).

    Lastly, Mr. Shoemaker has a low threshold for ‘smoke’ indicating fire.

    — Matt    2008-05-21 23:16    #

  54. Ok, now where’s the real brief…what, you mean this wasn’t some kind of late April Fool’s joke?

    — anonimouse    2008-05-23 01:26    #

  55. What? Would I disgrace the wedding anniversary of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine? The fall of Antioch to the Mamluk Sultan Baibars? The tragic night of the Bruges Matins? The day that...

    — Kathleen Seidel    2008-05-23 05:34    #

  56. as completely unintentional humor goes, it doesn’t get any better than this. But then we realize that it actually does! Not only did these persons choose to say things such as this aloud, in public, before God and Everyone, but each statement is followed by this legally required boilerplate.

    “I declare this 12th day of May at Richmond Virginia, under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. LISA SYKES”

    Oh, honey. I believe you. I really do!
    BWAHAHAAAAHAHHAH…

    — Bob King    2008-06-22 15:12    #