 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« Against It Before He Was For It | Main | The Software Never Blinks » July 3, 2008Blogger Beats Lawyer, AgainGlenn Reynolds reports that Clifford Shoemaker, the Virginia trial lawyer who subpoenaed blogging librarian Kathy Seidel, got spanked by the judge for his efforts. Here's background on the case. Seidel wrote her own motion to quash the subpoena and won - and now a judge has sanctioned the lawyer as well. As I wrote back in April, her motion was a brilliantly written defense of her First Amendment rights. And here's the rest of the happy ending: For quite some time to come, all the many, many blog posts about the Shoemaker-Seidel legal tussle will appear near the top of the Google search result for "Clifford Shoemaker," so future potential clients of his will be able to learn that he's a malicious hack of low ethics who got beat in court by a librarian. Posted in Blogging
Comments
I was one of the bloggers named in Shoemaker's subpoena, which is my dog in the hunt. You may find Seidel's two latest posts of interest. Numerous decisions issued over the twenty year history of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) document the extent to which the limits on attorney compensation have been tested by practitioners seeking remuneration from its taxpayer-financed coffers. The following review summarizes decisions involving the recently-sanctioned VICP specialist Clifford Shoemaker, Esq. -- a central instigator of the campaign to convince the public of the speculative, scientifically unsupported hypothesis that a significant number of cases of autism result from vaccine injury, co-founder of the Institute for Chronic Illnesses, and a founding member its Institutional Review Board, which sponsors and provides ethical oversight of medical research and experimentation on autistic children and adolescents conducted by his long-time colleague Dr. Mark Geier. Inspecting the Outstretched Palm The potential for procedural and billing improprieties by Vaccine Injury Compensation Program petitioners� attorneys � especially those representing numerous clients with similar, speculative claims � is made painfully evident in Special Master Denise Vowell�s recent fee and cost decision in Carrington v. HHS, Case 99-495V (Fed.Cl.Spec.Mstr., June 18, 2008) (unpublished), posted to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims website three days ago. Posted by: Liz Ditz at July 12, 2008 11:23 PMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
