thank you very much for this!

Recall that on April 21, the court quashed an incredibly broad subpoena from attorney Clifford Shoemaker, who represents Sykes. Shoemaker did not just request that Seidel release her correspondence with Bayer; he also demanded all of her documents pertaining to the issues she has written about on her Web site, as well as all of her correspondence with attorneys, physicians, the federal government, non-governmental political organizations, religious groups, and scientific and academic boards. To make matters worse, Shoemaker tried to defend his discovery demands by accusing Seidel and Bayer of conspiring to defame Sykes.

On Tuesday evening, Public Citizen, on behalf of Seidel, filed papers arguing that sanctions against Shoemaker were appropriate because the requests in his subpoena were irrelevant to the lawsuit against Bayer and “abusive and burdensome.” In its brief, Public Citizen cites the Supreme Court case Reno v. ACLU to support its argument that anyone can present “findings and conclusions” freely on the Internet if he or she so chooses, and argues that the use of discovery to harass a critic warrants sanctions. For more information, visit http://www.citizen.org/litigation/forms/cases/CaseDetails.cfm?cID=477.

Go to the bottom and click on the US Court of Federal Claims links. Please tell us which one of those are “private” information.

How does accessing this public information make her a party to the lawsuit of the Sykes versus a pharmaceutical company?

That aside, I concur, Sir, absolutely!

I am keeping a running list of responses to the Seidel subpoena at I Speak of Dreams. I’ve added your blog.

Oddly, only one blogger has negative things to say about Ms. Seidel.

and Joe? You made me spit coffee.

I’ve taken care of some crack whores who are basically decent people.

Joe