In the matter of Shoemaker v. Seidel; Court of public opinion; The Hon. Bugs Bunny Presiding.

Thanks in part to it being April, Autism Awareness Month, the Neurodiversity Weblog has managed to set of a minor firestorm, both within and increasingly outside of the core Autism blogging community. But not all by themselves.

They had help from an unlikely source in bringing wider attention to the post which in the normal course of events, would have remained unnoticed by the great majority and certainly widely ignored within the blogging community of the Law, though the author, Kathleen Seidel is well-known within the Autism community.

The story itself is about a particular settlement in vaccine court, which is being cited by "mercury moms" as being "proof" that mercury really does cause autism, though it was judged as being possible in this quite particular case and Vaccine Court standards do not rise to even the "balance of probability" standards of ordinary civil court.

neurodiversity weblog: The Commerce in Causation:

"News outlets have been brimming with the story of Poling v. HHS — the first Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) claim included in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding (OAP) that has resulted in an award to petitioners. The case first attracted widespread attention on February 25, when Evidence of Harm author David Kirby issued a triumphant proclamation of the award on the Huffington Post. This was followed the next day by Mr. Kirby’s publication of the partially-redacted text of a theretofore confidential U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) report, which recommended compensation to Miss Hannah Poling due to the likelihood that a vaccine reaction aggravated a maternally-inherited metabolic disorder and led to development of a seizure disorder."

The article goes on to examine the economic motives of one particular player in this somewhat sad and misleading tale in the usual dispassionate impersonally merciless way Neurodiversity is known for. The article reveals that there is another peculiartity of Vaccine Court - council is paid regardless of outcome.

And the council in this case is the same as in many, many, MANY other cases.

This storm of publicity surrounding Poling v. HHS has prominently featured career vaccine-injury attorney Mr. Clifford Shoemaker — a founding member of the Omnibus Autism Proceeding Petitioners’ Steering Committee, counsel to the Poling family, and long-time business associate of Dr. Mark Geier.

Now, this would not embarrass any ordinary attorney; a specialty is something that you get rewarded for doing because you are very, very good at it. It's what lets you eat steak instead of rice and beans, and that's something worth having known, even if you are very very good at something that many folks would consider kind of - well, grasping, opportunistic and mercenary, like say, "Ambulance Chasing."

But Seidel 's article reveals that if Mr. Clifford Shoemaker had to rely on making successful personal injury tort claims in a court of law with the usual standards of evidence, and on a contingency fee - he'd probably need a second job.

Over the last 18 months, he's 7 for 15, but either way, he gets paid. Now, you might wonder if that is because he doesn't feel the need to be selective - considering he gets paid either way. That was my initial thought. Cynical, perhaps; opportunistic, of course - but not presumptive of incompetence.

But to "deal with" Seidel he decided a quick and dirty variant of a SLAPP suit was in order.

He had Seidel served with a subpoena that - well aside from it's obvious tactical and punitive character, also serves to inadvertently, but clearly demonstrate the reason he's working in this "sheltered workshop" of the Law. If you don't wish to read the whole, Paragraph 9 is a howler; while paragraph five clearly indicates that he has at least mastered the copy function in a browser - it's contents being neurodiversity's blogroll!

In the inimitable words and tones of Tweety Bird: "He don't KNOW me vewwy well, DO he?"

Siedel's response is a masterpiece of classic aspergean reasoning - and demonstrates a far better grasp of both the relevant law and the relevant political climate than that of the supposed professional

Compare the subpoena to Sidel's pro se "motion to quash." It's the difference between an elegant and spare recorder solo - and a TAPE recorder solo.

Quite aside from your position regarding the causation of autism and who may be responsible for it, which person would you want drafting a brief in support of your cause?

Indeed, which person would you want working at your law firm? I raise a toast to the imaginary firm of "Dawson And Seidel"

It's not an entirely silly idea, is it?

Related Reading Update:
New York Personal Injury Law Blog: Abuse of Process: Blogger, Unrelated to Action, Hit With Subpoena

Great article and links to other blog reactions.

Nobody's Life, Liberty or Property...

"...Is safe while congress is in session."

Forwarded to me with the request that I pass it on. Which I surely will do.

http://blog.absolutearts.com/

From: illustratorspartnership@cnymail.com
Subject: "Promoting" Orphan Works
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:28:51 -0400

FROM THE ILLUSTRATORS' PARTNERSHIP

Yesterday ( Thurs. Mar. 13, 08) the House subcommittee on Intellectual
Property held their first hearing on new Orphan Works legislation.
Note the title:

"Hearing on Promoting the Use of Orphan Works: Balancing the Interests
of Copyright Owners and Users"

http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=427
Balance, however doesn't seem to be part of the Orphan Works
juggernaut. Indeed, after this hearing, we can no longer assume that
the U.S. Copyright Office is an advocate for the protection of
creators' rights. As they wrote on page 14 of their original Orphan
Works Report:

"If our recommendation resolves users' concerns in a satisfactory way,
it will likely be a comprehensive solution to the orphan works
situation." (our emphasis)

But how can any copyright law be "comprehensive" if it makes millions
of copyrights, no matter how valuable, available to users, no matter
how worthy, under a system that would introduce permanent uncertainty
into the business lives of creators?

Private Sector Registries

Since the last bill died in committee in 2006, the advocates of this
legislation have promoted the creation of private commercial
registries. On January 29, 2007, a lead attorney for the Copyright
Office warned us that under their plan any work not registered with a
private sector registry would be a potential orphan from the moment it
was created.

This means you would not only have to register your published work,
but also:

— Every sketch or note on every page of every sketchbook;
— Every sketch you send to every client;
— Every photograph you take anywhere, anytime, including family
photos, home videos, etc.;
— Every letter, email, etc., professional, personal or private.

This Would End Passive Copyright Protection: Under existing law the
total creative output of any "creator" receives passive copyright
protection from the moment you create it. This covers everything from
the published work of professional artists to the unpublished diaries,
letters and family photos of the average citizen.

But under the Orphan Works proposal, none of this material would be
covered unless the creator took active steps to register and maintain
coverage with a commercial registry. Failure to do so would "signal"
to infringers that you have no interest in protecting the work.

The Registration Paradox: By conceding that their proposals would make
potential orphans of any unregistered works, the Copyright Office
proposals would lead to a registration paradox: In order to "protect"
work from exposure to infringement, creators would have to expose it
on a publicly searchable registry. This would:

— Expose creative work to plagiarists and derivative abusers;
— Expose trade secrets and unused sketches to competitors;
— Expose unpublished and private correspondence to the public on the
Orwellian premise that you must expose it to "protect" it.

Yet registries will not be able to monitor infringements nor enforce
copyright compliance. Even after you've shelled out "protection money"
to a commercial registry to register hundreds of thousands of works,
you still won't be protected. A registry would do nothing more than
give you a piece of paper. You would still have to monitor
infringements - which can occur anytime anywhere in the world; then
embark on an uncertain quest to find the infringer, file a case in
Federal court, then prove that the infringer has removed your name or
other identifying information from your work. Meanwhile all the
infringer will have to do is say there was no such information on the
work when he found it and assert an orphan works defense. This will be
the end result of trying to "resolve the users' concerns" at the
expense of time-tested copyright law.

Coerced registration violates the spirit and letter of international
copyright law and copyright-related treaties. And because this bill
would effectively eliminate the passive copyright protection afforded
personal correspondence, family photos, etc. it would tear one more
slender thread of privacy protection from the fabric of fundamental
rights we currently take for granted.

We urge Congress to carefully reconsider the unintended consequences
of this radical copyright proposal.

— Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner, for the Board of the Illustrators'
Partnership

Please post or forward this email in its entirety to any interested party
For additional information about Orphan Works developments, go to the
IPA Orphan Works Resource Page for Artists
www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00185

I suggest that you contact your representatives immediately with your concerns about this matter. This is the worst sort of "privatization," where a real and useful service is replaced by a money-making scheme that will do less, cost far more, and bury every individual and small business that has any intellectual property under a snowstorm of probably quite useless paperwork, while giving all the "passive compliance" advantages to potential data thieves.

Under this law, Pepsi could replicate Coke and every single frame from every single film will have to be individually protected - for a fee.

Frankly, I think the very idea is obviously corrupt. Certainly it is practically impossible for individual creators or small businesses to adequately protect their works - since there's no possible way for them to afford to prosecute offenders. Recovery, you see, is capped.

The obvious remedy would be for the US entertainment industry to relocate north or south of the border, where the Berne Copyright Convention would still apply, and US commercial and constitutional law would require it's enforcement. Same for small creators, who could incorporate in Canada, Mexico, or anywhere else with an online application form.

And of course, at that point, well, actual relocation seems probable - given the very portability of the digital arts themselves and the communications capability of the web. For myself, I could live and work anywhere with a high-speed internet connection, and I'm starting to become rather indifferent to patriotic appeals, considering the rising cost of patriotism these days.

I would find it much easier to be patriotic about a homeland in which my home and livelihood were actually secured by my taxes, rather than made available to the highest bidder by people my tax dollars pay for.

Rumsfeld Flees France Fearing Arrest

Of course, the French did not catch him. But then, the unresolved situation as it stands is so very much more elegant than the potential unpleasantness and paperwork involved in actually catching and prosecuting him, which would have allowed Bush to do something.

This situation leaves the White House impotent - and leaves Rumsfeld an official fugitive from justice.

Of course, the honorable thing would have been to INSIST that the matter be resolved before a court. But under Napoleonic Law, you have to establish your innocence, rather than our system, where the prosecution has to prove your guilt.

I can understand why Rummy might prefer a venue with different standards.

A FISA court, for instance.

clipped from wor.ldne.ws Former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld fled France today fearing arrest over charges of "ordering and authorizing" torture of detainees at both the American-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the US military's detainment facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, unconfirmed reports coming from Paris suggest. US embassy officials whisked Rumsfeld away yesterday from a breakfast meeting in Paris organized by the Foreign Policy magazine after human rights groups filed a criminal complaint against the man who spearheaded President George W. Bush's "war on terror" for six years. Under international law, authorities in France are obliged to open an investigation when a complaint is made while the alleged torturer is on French soil.

Nukes Preplaced, not misallocated.

Smirking Chimp: "Nobody should fall for a story that those six (yeah, it was first reported as five, but now the original military whistleblowers have told Army Times it was six) nuclear-tipped cruise missiles that were flown in launch position on a B-52 from Minot, ND to Barksdale, LA, were put on there inadvertently."

The author speaks authoritatively why it could not possibly be a mistake. So why WERE six nukes flown to Barksdale AFB LA to join the other B52's already pre-positioned there for possible
middle-east missions? Oh, yeah, and what were the other B-52's loaded with when THEY arrived?

Let's go to the horse's mouth:

Barksdale Air Force Base, La. Home to the 2nd Bomb Wing and the Mighty 8th Air Force, Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana is situated on over 22,000 acres of land in the NW corner of Louisiana. Barksdale warriors and B-52s have a proud tradition serving both at home and abroad in support of the Global War on Terrorism; they have played vital roles in combat operations supporting Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Air Combat Command Mission

Air Combat Command is the primary force provider of combat airpower to America's warfighting commands. To support global implementation of national security strategy, ACC operates fighter, bomber, reconnaissance, battle-management and electronic-combat aircraft. It also provides command, control, communications and intelligence systems, and conducts global information operations.As a force provider, ACC organizes, trains, equips and maintains combat-ready forces for rapid deployment and employment while ensuring strategic air defense forces are ready to meet the challenges of peacetime air sovereignty and wartime air defense. ACC numbered air forces provide the air component to U.S. Central and Southern Commands with Headquarters ACC serving as the air component to U.S. Northern and Joint Forces Commands. ACC also augments forces to U.S. European, Pacific and Strategic Commands.

And in a serendipitous discovery, we learn that the 8th Air Force has an odd taste in heroes:

Barksdale AFB welcomes WWII pilot

BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. -- Joachim Hoehne, author of Glory Refused...The memoirs of a Teenage Rocket Pilot of the Third Reich, was the guest speaker for the local Claire Chennault Flight of the Order of Daedalians meeting Aug. 16 at the Barksdale Club.

But then, if and when the 2nd Bomber Wing of the 8th Air Force launches a first strike nuclear attack on - one supposes - Iran, they WILL "just be following orders," so perhaps that provides some insight as to why a former bomber-interceptor pilot would be addressing our Air Force Heroes.

After all, they were so woefully disappointed in their choice of inspirational religious leader, Ted Haggard, who's church was a stone's throw from the Air Force Acadamy. Who now will they turn to for a stiffening of resolve as they face the potential of being sent to rain hell upon the ungodly in their great Crusade (Bush's unfortunate choice of words) against the Terrorist State of Iran? Who might best personify the dutiful air-warrior, than a former ME-163 crotch rocketeer?

read more | digg story

tag: Air Force, Nuclear Weapons, Cruise Missiles, Fallout

Canada's Harper Talks Tough over the Northwest Passage

The Northwest Passage, once a disappointing vision, is now a commercially viable passage for part of the year - and it's a straight shot from Europe to the Pacific Rim.

Aside from that fairly impressive silver lining to the cloud of Global Warming, the retreat of the ice is revealing all kinds of newly available resources, from fishing stocks to energy reserves, and Canada's Steven Harper is staking a claim on it. - post by graphictruth

Canada Tightens Grip on Disputed Arctic - The Huffington Post Annotated

TORONTO — Canada announced plans Monday to increase its Arctic military presence in an effort to assert sovereignty over the Northwest Passage _ a potentially oil-rich region the United States claims is international territory.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said six to eight patrol ships will guard what he says are Canadian waters. A deep water port will also be built in a region the U.S. Geological Survey estimates has as much as 25 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas.

"Canada has a choice when it comes to defending our sovereignty over the Arctic. We either use it or lose it. And make no mistake, this government intends to use it," Harper said. "It is no exaggeration to say that the need to assert our sovereignty and protect our territorial integrity in the North on our terms have never been more urgent."

U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins has criticized Harper's promise to defend the Arctic, claiming the Northwest Passage as "neutral waters." But Wilkins declined to comment on Monday, said U.S. Embassy spokesman James Foster.

...

Patrol ships with steel-reinforced hulls will be able to go through ice a foot thick and will be armed and equipped with helicopter landing pads to accommodate new helicopters being purchased by the Canadian military.

Harper said the government opted for a more versatile fleet than heavy icebreakers because there is little need to patrol the area during the winter when ice prohibits shipping through the route.

Helicopter equipped patrol craft have a rather pointed antisubmarine and anti-commerce capability. The power to destroy is the power to tax and regulate and Canada clearly is making that statement with this and it's planned new deep-water arctic port.

One immense concern for Canada would be heavy tanker traffic, with the attendant environmental risks and resource impacts, which could be hugely magnified within the strait, and access to new fisheries could make a critical difference to the Canadian fishing industry.

Some claim international law is not on Canada's side in this issue, but I've noticed of late that International law tends to be on the side that has the ability and willingness to enforce their interpretation.

And that's yet another unfortunate precedent set by the Bush White House; essentially other nations the right to interpret or ignore international law when it would be against their interests.

tag: Northwest Passage, Seven Harper, Law of the Sea, global warming, northern development, Canadian Resources