The Texas Court: Business as Usual
By John Stone
Without commenting in detail on how Judge Scott Field sliced up Andy Wakefield’s petition against BMJ and Brian Deer it is interesting to note the line of patronage in the Texas court system. Field enjoys the endorsement of the Texas Civil Justice League Political Action Committee (TCJL) . Represented on the committee (Board of Directors) are many of the great corporations of the world including MMR manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline in the person of Gaspar X Laca , who also enjoys the title of ‘Acct Director Govt Relations’ and has two addresses: one at GSK’s London Office and the other in Scottsdale, Arizona (which suggests he has less claim on the protection of the Texas court than Andy). If I understand Mr Laca’s profession correctly he is a corporate government lobbyist. Zoominfo quotes a now 16 year old report of Laca’s views (is this the most recent?):
“Glaxo-Wellcome's Senior Government Affairs Manager Gaspar Laca spoke about How to Become More Effective Advocates."If you want to become a true advocate, do it all year round."said Gaspar Laca, Senior Manger of Government Affairs at Glaxo.
“He said it is important to stay in constant communication with the elected officials.Laca suggests setting up appointments to meet with legislators or staying in touch through the mail.
“He said letters should be brief and to the point (three paragraphs will suffice).First, identify yourself as a constituent, and state whether you support or oppose a bill and then tell the lawmaker how you want them to vote.Second, state why the bill is important to you.And third, thank them.Short hand written notes are the best.
“Laca also suggests that advocates keep lawmakers informed by mailing them newspaper articles about pertinent issues.He said it is important to monitor a bill's progress and that it is easier to kill a bill than to pass one.He added that the best place to amend a bill is at the committee level.
As for public testimony, Laca recommends that it be short, direct, and factual.He said to distribute written copies of statements to committee members and if a committee member is absent, mail that person a copy of the testimony.After testifying, he said to be prepared for questions.”
TJCL PAC state as their mission:
“Texas businesses, health care providers, and trade and professional associations established the Texas Civil Justice League Political Action Committee (TCJL PAC) in 1986 for the purpose of supporting candidates for the Texas Supreme Court committed to the doctrine of judicial restraint and deference to the Legislature in matters involving new rights to sue. During that time the Court became the most plaintiff-friendly high court in the nation, earning the Wall Street Journal’s moniker, “the courthouse for the world.”
“The TCJL PAC has turned all of that around. Since the late 1980s, the Texas Supreme Court has become one of the most highly regarded and scholarly courts in the nation. Its opinions set the standard for the rest of the country. In addition, the TCJL PAC is the only statewide business PAC that supports judges and justices for the 14 Texas appellate courts, who decide more than 95% of all appeals. Finally, the TCJL PAC assists candidates for the Texas Legislature who support our goals for a fair, balanced, and efficient business liability system.”
This is not to say, of course, that Mr Laca intervened directly in any way in Judge Field’s decision, only that you would perhaps be more likely to get elected as a judge in the Texas court if you were sympathetic to the interests of global corporatism, and that many of the world’s largest corporations think it is worth their while to maintain representation on TCJL PAC. Whether, of course, we are in any way safer in the United Kingdom with our oligarchical appointments is another matter.
Among the commercial interests also represented on the Board of Directors TCJL PAC are Koch Companies (who featured recently as sponsors of NOVA PBS), Pfizer and Johnson and Johnson.
John Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism.
(Note 2 February 2015: I am grateful to Jake Crosby for having drawn my attention to this issue.)
Godfrey -I've just found your comment, and thank you for your clarifications. You are correct about Scots Law being different from England. However, feasible or not, Andrew Wakefield's suit would have no chance in an English court, even if the 'establishment' allowed the case to be heard at all. The costs would be prohibitive, mostly lawyers' fees, not counting the 'cross Atlantic' costs. In the UK, losers have to pay the entire costs of the case.
From Godfrey's comment:-
"I should also note that the award of court costs here does not include attorney's fees; that is very uncommon in the U.S."
I was very interested to hear this, although Brian Deer's incontinent verbiage on his web page and elsewhere gave me an inkling. (Deer is very resentful about being taken to court in Texas, often complaining his costs are non recoverable).
Posted by: Jenny Allan | September 25, 2014 at 02:43 AM
Is there a current site or address to send donations to Dr. Wakefield's legal fund?
Speaking of business as usual, on the same day this ruling went out one of my Senators sent a response I think to one of the AAN action alerts.
"Thank you for writing to express your concerns about vaccines. I welcome this opportunity to respond.
"Before vaccination against diseases such as smallpox, measles and polio became widespread in the United States, tens of thousands of children were seriously disabled or died each year as a result of preventable illnesses such as these. Worldwide, measles alone killed 2.6 million children each year before intensive efforts to vaccinate children to prevent the disease. Due to efforts to promote vaccine use, annual measles deaths have decreased by over 95 percent globally. I support efforts to eradicate this and other deadly preventable diseases.
"I understand you are concerned about the safety of vaccines. I believe it is important that vaccines be properly tested to ensure they are safe for all members of the population for which they are being recommended. I support funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which support vaccine safety research and monitoring efforts. One such monitoring program, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) enables healthcare providers to share information on side effects and other adverse events with the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The CDC and FDA then use this information to conduct investigations or research into any safety concerns. In addition, most states permit parents to opt children out of mandatory vaccine schedules. California permits parents to exempt children from inoculation requirements due to religious or philosophical objections."
I don't know if the Senator wrote this or her staff and maybe this was in response to something I emailed well before Dr. Thompson's revelations, but there is no awareness of those revelations, California's not-so-new-now legislation significantly compromising the philosophical exemption, nor even seemingly the fact that today we have hundreds of thousands of children and young adults with various disabilities, easily millions if you factor in chronic health problems, and one of the worst rankings of infant and childhood mortality in the "developed world."
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | September 23, 2014 at 09:03 PM
I just found my comments! Attached to the "photo only" apparently. http://www.statesman.com/photo/news/court-andrew-wakefield-autism-researcher-cannot-su/pCQP7N/
Posted by: Christina Waldman | September 23, 2014 at 03:55 PM
It was work-at-home spam; "jenniferjhaskell" has left similar "my neighbor's aunt makes doolar77 an hour on the internet" comments elsewhere.
Posted by: Godfrey Wyl | September 23, 2014 at 02:19 PM
The defamatory Wikipedia article on Dr. Wakefield has already been updated with the lawsuit results, with the Statesman article given as a reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield footnotes 110, 111. The well-oiled propaganda machine is hard at work.
Posted by: Christina Waldman | September 23, 2014 at 02:14 PM
Just a thought.....now that everyone knows AW cannot sue for defamation in Texas, does this mean that anyone can say what they like, wherever and whenever, however abusive and untrue, about him, if it relates to this MMR case?
Did the Courts not realise that this could well happen as a consequence of their decision? Because that is what it begins to look like to me.
I know that in the UK we often call the law an ass, but that would be insane.
Posted by: patricia | September 23, 2014 at 12:32 PM
Bravo to Andrew Wakefield's attorneys for a job well done!
"It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly...who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at best, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."
Theodore Roosevelt, 1910
Many thanks to Age of Autism for putting the link to the Decision in the second line of the article.
Posted by: Christina Waldman | September 23, 2014 at 12:26 PM
Jenny, that kind of blatant censorship is an embarrassment to them.
Posted by: jen | September 23, 2014 at 10:30 AM
Godfrey et al:-
I put the Statesman link on my first comment. Here it is again.
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/court-andrew-wakefield-autism-researcher-cannot-su/nhQhN/
When I posted it there were 13 comments. The second one calls Dr Wakefield a 'pig' and says he should be dead or in prison. It also accuses him of performing unnecessary spinal taps on children. (Dr Wakefield's Royal Free contract precluded ANY clinical contact with children). In the UK, this comment would not be published. It would be illegal.
There is no sign of Christina's comment, but one was disallowed because it 'broke the rules'. God only knows what the rules must be. Oh I forgot! The 'sponsors and advertisers' make the rules these days, including the powerful pharmaceutical industries.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | September 23, 2014 at 01:42 AM
Is the court aware of the whistleblower?
Posted by: Billy Joe | September 22, 2014 at 11:23 PM
Re "The Statesman" article Jane posted a link to, in response to Godfrey Wyl, to clarify: It is true, you can still read the article in full for free, the "3:55 p.m. on 9/19 version" here: http://www.statesman.com/news/news/court-andrew-wakefield-autism-researcher-cannot-su/nhQhN/ After my 5:37 p.m. on 9/19 comment never showed up, I tried again to post a comment at the free site, and it redirected to this site (article version 6:15 p.m. on 9/19): http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/andrew-wakefield-autism-researcher-cannot-sue-in-t/nhQzL/ (The Austim American-Statesman). Here, you had to subscribe to read the full article or to read or post comments. I wrote to [email protected], asking if they had posted my comment, at 9 a.m. on 9/20. To date, no response.
Posted by: Christina Waldman | September 22, 2014 at 10:50 PM
@Robin:
This discretion appears to legislatively arise from Section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
Posted by: Godfrey Wyl | September 22, 2014 at 10:12 PM
@Jenny Allan:
The Defamation Act 2013 instituted the "single publication rule," so the (one-year) statute of limitations has long expired in England and Wales. Scotland only adopted Sections 6 and 7, so continued availability of the papers might be a viable theory there, although I have no idea of the Scottish courts' view of forum shopping.
In the U.S., defamation is purely a matter of state law; it is not possible to start over at the federal level. I am not familiar with the second of the two cases you mention, but Krahling & Wlochowski's Merck suit is an action brought under the False Claims Act, which is quite a different animal.
I should also note that the award of court costs here does not include attorney's fees; that is very uncommon in the U.S.
Posted by: Godfrey Wyl | September 22, 2014 at 09:53 PM
Rapid/Rabid response from Lawrence as always ..and the biggest story is the silent one #CDCWHISTLEBLOWER.
MMR RIP
Posted by: Angus Files | September 22, 2014 at 07:27 PM
Robin,
Wonderful thought: perhaps I could get a job marking myself on the blogs.
John
Posted by: John Stone | September 22, 2014 at 07:02 PM
Hi Godfrey,
Have had several contradictory reports over this, but I imagine Christina saw what she saw.
John
Posted by: John Stone | September 22, 2014 at 06:47 PM
Have saved that "social media specialist" webpage as a screenshot for future use as an "exhibit" as they term it in the legal systems. Also I need to earn some money myself.
Posted by: Robin | September 22, 2014 at 06:34 PM
It's not "for subscribers only" for me.
Posted by: Godfrey Wyl | September 22, 2014 at 06:33 PM
Dr. Wakefield has been much maligned in the press for years, beginning with Brian Deer whose orders were to "find something big on MMR."
*****************
If we're going to raise money, then I suggest that we also do it to fund a team of independent investigators.
And set them loose to "find something big" on people like Brian Deer, and Dorit Reiss, and Judge Scott Field, and Ivan Oransky, and Paul Offit….. Because you can bet your ass that people this depraved, have closet doors that bulge from the sheer number of skeletons that lie within.
And when the investigators are done with that, then maybe set them loose to find out who exactly is applying for these "Social Media Specialist" positions.
It'd be interesting to see if Lawrence would be so belligerent, if he/she lived with the knowledge that his/her identity could be revealed at any time.
Posted by: Barry | September 22, 2014 at 05:13 PM
Lawrence, there is a place where you can click to see the opinion. It's right in this article. You just have to actually do that. The only way that the unjust treatment of Dr. Wakefield can be made right is by suing. And if it's of interest to you, you might find laws are being eroded every day, and if your ilk continues their thoughtless comments you may be a victim of that judicial impertinence as well some day. The majority of the population are nearly powerless to make things right because they don't have the money.
Posted by: Birgit Calhoun | September 22, 2014 at 03:37 PM
PS to previous. It was not just one case where permission to audiorecord my own ("public") case was refused. And I have found that whenever you write in to request permission, there is no reply, ever. It's just a scam to cover up the judicial filth.
Posted by: Robin | September 22, 2014 at 03:08 PM
My understanding is that a defamation suit in the UK must be filed within 6 months (or a year?) and certainly out of time now. In any case as I've already mentioned, the UK courts are 100% corrupt houses of barefaced judicial lying which is a likely reason AW didn't bother filing there anyway.
Just ask yourself WHY a high court judge and DH barrister adamantly refuse to allow me to audio-record my own personal case (at a so-called public hearing)(and refuse to give any reason for their refusal). I know why because I was there to hear the (unrecorded) filthy lies coming from that judge's mouth. (Oh, over at lbrb they've posted my comment about refusing recordings, then some wit said it's the legislators that ban recordings, then I replied that no it was the judge who chose to refuse permission.... but my reply was not allowed onto their hallowed site. I don't agree with everything on A0A but it's miles more sane than the madhouse of lbrb.
Posted by: Robin | September 22, 2014 at 03:05 PM
Well; I won't say that I am disappointed again.
Cause I am. Even though I expected such - since it was taking so long -- The length of time it took to make this decision means to me that the judge knows it is wrong but there was pressure to do what was not right.
Posted by: Benedetta | September 22, 2014 at 02:26 PM
One might think with the ...MMR study / CDC lying mess... that TEXAS might want to make some effort to locate the TRUTH of a few issues but I guess not...
Posted by: cmo | September 22, 2014 at 02:00 PM
I hate to think that the courts are at the whim of the Koch brothers and other such interests. They're taking over in so many ways. Here in Colorado, the second largest school district is in the news for teacher sick-outs and students protesting curriculum control. The Koch brothers were involved in funding the campaigns of the new school board members that took over last year. Some of us wondered why? The editorials in the Denver Post about the curriculum guidelines make very scary reading. Here's where people object:
"Materials should promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights," as well as "positive aspects of the United States and its heritage."
www.denverpost.com/.../jeffco-schools-curriculum-plan...
Sounds like indoctrination to me. Is Jefferson County, Colorado just a fluke or are they already doing this all over?
Posted by: Betty Bona | September 22, 2014 at 01:54 PM
At 5:37 pm on 9/19/14 I commented to the Statesman article, as below. At 6:15 p.m. the article was changed to premium, for subscribers only, and my validly submitted comment never saw the light of day, to my knowledge. Coincidence?
Here was my comment: Dr. Wakefield has been much maligned in the press for years, beginning with Brian Deer whose orders were to "find something big on MMR." Vaccine articles sell papers, Deer said. Even this very article repeats the anti-Wakefield propaganda, begun by Deer and disseminated by the AP, etc., via internet into too many homes, doctor's offices, businesses, and personal computers/smartphones to count across the US. For a detailed, well-documented book, see Andrew J. Wakefield, "Callous Disregard, Autism and Vaccines - the Truth Behind a Tragedy" (including studies where his research findings were replicated). It is of concern when the British Medical Journal, a hybrid medical/business publication, is complicit in unfairly labeling a man and his research "a fraud." Why the intent to ruin him? Without independent media following its own standards of fairness and objectivity, without scientific integrity that puts children above profits, how can we protect the children? Write to Congressman Posey and ask for Congressional inquiry into CDC official Thompson's recent disclosures that the CDC hid data showing African American children were at a much higher risk of getting autism after having had the MMR vaccination. Cochrane Review 2012 on MMR found the safety studies "largely inadequate." Dr. Wakefield suggested giving single vaccines until more was known. He refused to abandon the sick children to save his own career. That was integrity. Read his book to get the full story.
Posted by: Christina Waldman | September 22, 2014 at 12:42 PM
Ps, I thought Texas was the freedom loving state?
Posted by: jen | September 22, 2014 at 10:42 AM
"Successful pharmaceutical company seeks a talented, motivated, and energetic social media specialist with excellent writing skills. The individual(s) must be able to commit their full attention to this position. "
"Talented" with "excellent writing skills" will make for a welcome change but if there was any honesty in that job posting they would have included "unabashedly sociopathic".
Posted by: samaxtics | September 22, 2014 at 10:41 AM
lol, "commit their full attention" (as in Dorit Reiss obsessive posting), "post and engage" (smear people attack people on-line). Wow, that's pretty obvious as what the job entails.
Posted by: jen | September 22, 2014 at 10:28 AM
Lawrence: "how does it feel to know that all of that money that was donated to the "Wakefield Defense Fund" will now be paid directly to Brian Deer & the BMJ?"
For a righteous man falls seven times, and rises again, But the wicked stumble in time of calamity. Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, And do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles; Or the LORD will see it and be displeased. Proverbs
A good man would prefer to be defeated than to defeat injustice by evil means. Sallust
There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting. Buddha
Where do I send a donation to support Dr. Wakefield?
Posted by: Danchi | September 22, 2014 at 09:58 AM
Well done John for finding that ad! How about posting it in all its glory on the trolls own sites? Just in case any of 'em is looking to burn more midnight oil or even relocate...
I know where I would love to relocate them....have you noticed how they are simply talking to themselves all the time? Where does that get 'em? Up their own proverbials I would suggest! LOL.
Posted by: patricia | September 22, 2014 at 09:42 AM
Regarding the germane question of whether people like Lawrence and Prof Chris Preston (whose weedling, irrelevant submission I just deleted) are paid to post the following job advertisement is interesting:-
http://www.indeed.com/cmp/Pharmaceutical-Company-Seeks-Social-Media-Specialists/jobs/Social-Media-Specialist-f74ee88e5efe3273
Social Media Specialist
Pharmaceutical Company Seeks Social Media Specialists - Dallas-Fort Worth, TX
Successful pharmaceutical company seeks a talented, motivated, and energetic social media specialist with excellent writing skills. The individual(s) must be able to commit their full attention to this position. We ask that only serious applicants submit their resumes, please.
As the social media specialist, you will work with a team of fellow social media experts and writers to post and engage across several social media sites, such as: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr, and so on. Our goal is to expand the brand to every individual both domestically and internationally.
To apply, please submit a resume, cover letter, and few writing samples that highlight your skills to the following:
Madelyn Cintron, Social Media and Content Manager
Use the email provided by Indeed.com
Once your resume has been reviewed, you will contacted for an interview, if we feel you are a right fit for our company. Thank you for your time, and we look forward to meeting with you.
Posted by: John Stone | September 22, 2014 at 08:57 AM
Patricia asks:-
"Is there any possibility now that AW could still sue in the UK courts?"
Maybe. I'm not a lawyer, but in the UK lawsuits are subject to 'Statute of Limitations' laws, usually 3 years from the date of the alleged 'offence'. The Deer BMJ 'Secrets of the MMR scare' were first published Jan-Feb 2011, and involved 3 separate articles. This would seem to 'time bar' any UK litigation, but WAIT.
Firstly, the articles are still available via the internet. Also they have been extensively cited and re discussed on the BMJ internet sites, during, for example, the Dr David Lewis controversy. Brian Deer's web site also contains links to all his BMJ and Times articles as well as his own 'tuppence worth'.
I think it could well be feasible for a Wakefield v BMJ defamation case to take place in the UK. Also, precluding litigation in Texas does not prevent the case taking place in the US Supreme Court. Recent 'successes' have involved judges allowing 2 lawsuits brought by US whistleblowers, one of them brought against Merck for allegedly corruptly fiddling the figures overstating the long term efficacy of their mumps MMR vaccine component. In both cases the corporate defendants threw vast amounts of money into attempts to have these cases dismissed without a hearing.
Of course, all this takes money, a lot of it. It's unfair to expect Dr Wakefield to bankrupt himself on behalf of humanity. Get fundraising folks!
Posted by: Jenny Allan | September 22, 2014 at 08:12 AM
John Stone
Is there any possibility now that AW could still sue in the UK courts. A man's 'reputation' is not worth breaking his spirit for, AW's reputation has already been partially restored anyhow. due to his own behaviour and his selfless concerns for the children of this world.
What IS worth pursuing is the full exposure of the his corrupt and malign pursuers in a UK court if it can be done.
No matter how long it takes. AW never had his day in an English court as we well know, not from want of trying.
Surely a major fund set up could provide for the expenses on both sides of the pond, AW has now such an enormous amount of growing support, especially in the light of what is currently happening with the CDC.
@Lawrence - Nobody who regularly visits this forum and supports AW is remotely concerned about 'paying checks to Brian Deer's lawyers'. You really don't get it do you. LOL.
Posted by: patricia | September 22, 2014 at 07:30 AM
Also, how does it feel to know that all of that money that was donated to the "Wakefield Defense Fund" will now be paid directly to Brian Deer & the BMJ?
*************
Lawrence,
You truly are a sociopathic asshole.
Posted by: Barry | September 22, 2014 at 07:22 AM
I'm glad you wrote this John. I didn't think that petitioners were commonly charged for court costs in this country, but I could be wrong. Since the court's decision is that the case has to be tried in England, by charging Dr. Wakefield for costs the court makes it less likely that he will be able to afford to present his case in England. It would be different if this was a frivolous suit, but that wasn't the finding. So the punitive treatment of Dr. Wakefield doesn't make any sense unless the court is biased.
Posted by: Linda1 | September 22, 2014 at 07:07 AM
OOPS!! I meant to say GSK were fined almost half a BILLION dollars in China, (not half a million $). Even so, compared to GSK's vast profits this was a 'drop in the ocean' to them. Corruption and bribery have proven very profitable.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | September 22, 2014 at 06:49 AM
Thank you John for your investigation of the corporate connections of Judge Scott Field, which in a way are similar to those of the first Judge Amy Meacham. It seems with big corporations taking over democracy, mainstream media and the justice system, then big pharma giving us ill health, it is left to the people to rebel and get it back. (Perhaps we should start by taking a few lessons on how to influence politician’s from the instructions given above).
In the meantime, we thank you for all your contributions and that of other writers on AoA who are all relentless in pursuit of the truth, justice and well being of humanity. Moreover, you don't do it for financial or professional gain unlike all the mainstream journalists (including trolls) and most politicians. You do it because you all have vaccine-assaulted children and want to prevent damage to future generations. Dr. Wakefield also has this concern but all he has left in the world now is his integrity and the admiration of people all over the world who know he is right. As important as that is, it won't pay his legal expenses and we all should give what we can to prevent him from bankruptcy.
Jenny is right, Meryl Dory was faced with an $11,000 fee, which was unjust, and we were able to raise money for her within a day. I expect the fancy lawyers paid for by the BMJ would want a lot more than $11,000 but Dr. Wakefield has a higher profile so we should be able to do it again.
Making him pay the legal expenses of a big company (BMJ)who took his right to work in his profession away, is one way of making sure he will never be able to afford justice. It also serves as a warning to other doctors wanting to tell the truth for the benefit of mankind.
It was also not surprising that the Appeal court suddenly made a ruling on his case after sitting on it almost a year longer than they said they would. They had to do this before more people found out about the fraudulent behaviour of the CDC and Dr Thompson apologising to Wakefield for the deliberate coverup. If they brought down their decision after all the world knew about the corruption in the CDC, their decision would have looked more unjust than it already does.
By the way the trolls were out in force in the Austin Statesman paper http://www.statesman.com/news/news/court-andrew-wakefield-autism-researcher-cannot-su/nhQhN/who covered the story in their usual blatantly biased fashion showing the worst picture of Dr. Wakefield you have ever seen. Lawrence (probably AKA Brian Deer) made similar comments to his ones above. Little Dorit Reiss as usual was one of the first cabs off the rank and spewed forth the trolls usual condemnation of the truth and links redirecting you to more propaganda. They only printed 13 comments some of which were very nasty.
Posted by: Jane | September 22, 2014 at 06:46 AM
Lawrence asks:-
"How does it feel to know that all of that money that was donated to the "Wakefield Defense Fund" will now be paid directly to Brian Deer & the BMJ?"
As I understand it the defendants are entitled to have their legal and other expenses refunded, for which they will be required to provide receipts etc. There are no 'winners' here. As a contributor I have no problems about the Wakefield fund being used for this purpose. At the moment, corporate interests are effectively skewing all of our political systems. To my way of thinking this MUST be curbed by what little power citizens have left in our so called 'democracies'.
In China, MMR manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline have just been fined almost half a million dollars for bribery and corruption. Recently knighted GSK CEO Sir Witty wrings his hands, whilst another scandal erupts in another country. This time polio vaccine manufacturers GSK in Belgium, leaked thousands of gallons containing live polio virus into the river system. The bemused Belgians have been told it's harmless, but just to be on the safe side get vaccinated!! Very profitable -for GSK that is. At least another half dozen countries are also accusing GSK of the same kind of bribery and corruption offences committed in China. In the US , GSK were fined $1billion a few years ago for ........bribery and corruption.
It is said, all that is needed for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing. Dr Andrew Wakefield is a 'good man' and one of the few to have the guts to stand up for those who have been damaged (and continue to be damaged) by ......dare I say it?.......bribery and corruption.
I am proud to support such a man.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | September 22, 2014 at 06:17 AM
Lawrence
The judgment is linked to above. The arguments are rididculous. The BMJ intended consequences in Texas just as they intended consequences everywhere else, putting out global press releases. They were actually reduced to arguing that they did not know AW lived in Texas and claiming they didn't trade there.
Posted by: John Stone | September 22, 2014 at 05:54 AM
If I recall, there were people here who were crowing about Wakefield's lawsuit & how it was going to "bring the house" down in regards to the BMJ / Brian Deer.
Perhaps, if you'd post up the actual decision & opinion, the people here could see for themselves exactly why the lawsuit was dismissed and why it had no chance of moving forward in the first place - based on actual case law & not conspiracy.
Also, how does it feel to know that all of that money that was donated to the "Wakefield Defense Fund" will now be paid directly to Brian Deer & the BMJ?
Posted by: Lawrence | September 22, 2014 at 05:41 AM
If you think of all these gigagantic global corporations who regard it is their business to influence court proceedings in the state of Texas, it is rather anomalous that a Texas citizen cannot call on the court when he is being universally defamed including in Texas. I don't know whether per Jenny Allen it is not worth challenging Judge Field but it plainly is not justice.
Posted by: Megabucks | September 22, 2014 at 05:36 AM
""State courts lack jurisdiction over the British publication because its 2011 articles did not concern Texas or activities that occurred in Texas, nor were they aimed at Texans, said the opinion, written by Justice Scott Field."
Looks like a typical judicial cheap lie to me. There was jurisdiction in Texas because the BMJ knowingly published those articles in Texas, where AW was a resident, and they defamed his interests there. End of the matter. The fact that the defamation alleged deeds in the UK and the BMJ have their offices in UK is irrelevant.
Posted by: Robin | September 22, 2014 at 05:27 AM
So please......where do we donate??
Posted by: patricia | September 22, 2014 at 05:23 AM
If I've understood this article correctly the judicial system in US-SSR don't even try to hide their corruption.
Meanwhile you might be interested in one of the key deceits of the UK "justice" system. The Limitation Act states clearly that the "date of knowledge" is the date when one had "knowledge of the fact that the injury was attributable" to the alleged cause and defendant. This has to be interpreted in the normal meanings of those words.
But according to the High Court Pseuds, "knowledge" really means suspicion, "fact" really means possibility, and "was" means "might be". I took eight dictionaries to my High Court appeal showing that none of the dictionaries supported those perversions of the interpretation - which makes many people logically incapable of winning because their suspicions were unable to be confirmed till more than 3 yrs later. But to no avail as High Court judges can tell whatever lies they like and there is no challenge. If a High Court judge says 2+2=29 that's the end of the matter regardless of how many mathematicians say otherwise.
The situation appears to be less scam in the USA, as there was a ruling that the date of knowledge only begins once there is a scientific consensus about thing x causing illness y.
Posted by: Robin | September 22, 2014 at 05:22 AM
No conflicts and no comment from the trolls..
MMR RIP
Posted by: Angus Files | September 22, 2014 at 03:10 AM
Court: Andrew Wakefield, autism researcher, cannot sue in Texas
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/court-andrew-wakefield-autism-researcher-cannot-su/nhQhN/
The three judges in the Wakefield v BMJ, Deer & Godlee, gave their reasons as follows (from above article):-
"State courts lack jurisdiction over the British publication because its 2011 articles did not concern Texas or activities that occurred in Texas, nor were they aimed at Texans, said the opinion, written by Justice Scott Field.
“The publications concerned Wakefield’s conduct and activities that occurred in England, and Texas is never mentioned in any of the articles,” Field wrote.
The court upheld District Judge Amy Clark Meachum’s decision to toss out Wakefield’s lawsuit because Texas courts lacked jurisdiction over the defendants, including reporter Brian Deer and editor Fiona Godlee."
Conflicted Judge Amy Meacham's earlier summary dismissal of the Texas jurisdiction case was a disgrace, but the appeal judges have at least provided their detailed reasoning and in my opinion it would be futile to attempt to appeal these. Also in my opinion Andrew Wakefield was badly advised to include Brian Deer and Fiona Godlee in his lawsuit, both of whom were plainly acting on instructions from their paymasters; in Godlee's case it was admitted the pharmaceutical industries have a huge influence over the publication and content of BMJ articles. It would have been simpler to confine the suit to the British Medical Journal, for sale in Texas as both hard copy and internet articles, citing all three Deer 2011 BMJ articles. The second article in the series, “How the vaccine crisis was meant to make money”, virtually accuses Dr Wakefield of defrauding the UK Legal aid board, by using public money to finance a business. This was provably false and plainly defamatory:-
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5258.full
(extract from above):-
“To help finance the scheme, Wakefield looked to the government’s legal aid fund—meant to give poorer people access to justice.”
Dr Wakefield has been ordered to pay both his own and the defenders’ costs. I suggest a dedicated public appeal be set up to help with these. In Australia, vaccine campaigner Meryl Dorey attempted to stop the horrendous abuse and death threats from a well known pro vaccine ‘Skeptic’, and got landed with punitive court costs she couldn’t afford. The cash was raised worldwide within hours of an appeal.
It's important to remember, the jurisdiction case, did not address the merits or otherwise of the plaintiff's case, but determined whether or not it could be heard in a Texas court.
From "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll"
Bob Dylan. Recorded on October 23, 1963
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/bobdylan/thelonesomedeathofhattiecarroll.html
“In the courtroom of honor, the judge pounded his gavel
To show that all's equal and that the courts are on the level
And that the strings in the books ain't pulled and persuaded
And that even the nobles get properly handled
Once that the cops have chased after and caught 'em
And that ladder of law has no top and no bottom”
Posted by: Jenny Allan | September 22, 2014 at 02:22 AM