Slashdot Mirror


Blogger Subpoenaed for Criticizing Trial Lawyers

Cutie Pi writes "Katherine Seidel, mother of an autistic child and an avid blogger has been subpoenaed for her "family's bank records, tax returns, autism-related medical and educational records, and every communication concerning all of the issues to which [she] has devoted [her] attention and energy in recent years." The lawyer in question is representing a mother who is suing Bayer for $20M with the claim that mercury in their vaccines caused her child's autism. In her blog Seidel has spoken out against lawyers trying to cash in on thimerosal lawsuits, noting that the thimerosal-autism link has been debunked in several studies. But Seidel herself has had no direct involvement in the lawsuit."

3 of 500 comments (clear)

  1. Re:What is the judge thinking? by russotto · · Score: 5, Informative

    Subpoenas can be issued without any judge looking at them; they're filed with the court by the attorney and then served. It's up to the poor slob served to file a motion to quash (which she has). Punishment through subpoenas and the discovery process in general is nothing new, alas.

  2. Re:This is why people hate lawyers... by joseph449008 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Except that all the information Kathleen posts is supported by publicly available information, and Mr. Shoemaker no doubt knows this. The subpoena was issued 4 hours after Kathleen posted information about the money Shoemaker makes by losing vaccine injury cases. See her motion to quash. Make no mistake, some people would like to silence Kathleen and at the same time indulge their delusions that she's part of an government/pharma/illuminati conspiracy. What has happened is clearly a threat to freedom of speech. Imagine if lawyers could just issue subpoenas if they see an opinion on the web they don't like.

  3. Re:Silent Spring all over again by Planesdragon · · Score: 5, Informative

    DDT was completely awful and evil for saving millions of peoples lives in Africa. DDT is still perfectly legal to use for disease control, which is how it's used in Africa.

    It's not legal to use it how we WERE using it -- to get a slightly higher yield from wholly un-diseased agriculture.