(Brian)
Deer in the Headlights...
Opinion by Consumer Advocate
Tim Bolen
Tuesday, January 10th, 2012
It's Deer Hunting season in Texas.
No, I'm not talking about hunting White
Tail Deer along the Milk River in West
Texas, or Mule Deer anywhere in the
Texas Panhandle. So, put that key
to the gun cabinet back in your pocket.
White
Tail and Mule are NOT the deer being
hunted in Texas in THIS story.
Nobody is going to be wearing
camouflage, and we aren't going to have
to hike eleven miles before dawn,
carrying a sixty pound pack.
Today we are after the imported Deer
variety, the Brian.
We'll be doing our hunting in Downtown
Austin, Texas, the State Capitol.
Specifically, we'll be centering our
story in the Travis County Courthouse
(pictured on the right), where, unless
you are a member of law enforcement,
guns are pretty much prohibited.
But, make no mistake, Brian Deer, here,
is under the gun.
The hero of our story today is a guy I
haven't yet met - Andy Wakefield, who
just happened to be a resident of
Austin, Texas on January 5th, 2011, the
day that Brian Deer's article
"Secrets of the MMR Scare: How the
Case Against the MMR Vaccine Was Fixed"
was published in the British Medical
Journal (BMJ). It was accompanied
by two editorials by Fiona Godlee,
Editor of the BMJ titled "Wakefield's
Article Linking MMR Vaccine and Autism
Was Fraudulent," and "Editor's
Choice: The Fraud Behind the MMR
Scare."
Yup, I'm talking, here, about the Andy
Wakefield, from Britain, famous for
suggesting that there might be a
connection between the MMR vaccine and
Autism, and suggested, to the horror of
the vaccine industry, that further study
was warranted. That same Andy
Wakefield we see, officially, as Andrew
J. Wakefield MB., BS., BRCS, formerly of
Great Britain - but now a Texan.
It looks as though our Andy found a law
firm in Austin, Texas called
DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy LLP
who assigned to Andy their top business
litigator Partner
William M. Parrish (Bill), who, for
the last thirty years has specialized in
intellectual property issues and complex
business litigation.
On January 3rd, 2012, a few days before
the Statute of Limitations could run
out, Bill Parrish filed, for his client
Andrew J. Wakefield MB., BS., BRCS
(Andy) a lawsuit in Travis County, Texas
against Brian Deer, the British Medical
Journal, Fiona Godlee. The lawsuit
claims that:
"This defamation lawsuit
arises, in part, out of the publication
on or about January 5, 2011 and
thereafter, in the British Medical
Journal, of an article authored for the
BMJ by Brian Deer, titled Secrets of the
MMR Scare (Exhibit A) and accompanying
editorials by the BMJ’s editor, Fiona
Godlee (Exhibit B 1-2). Defendants’
article and editorials, distributed to
subscribers in Texas and which form the
basis of Plaintiff’s claims, contained
unfair, incorrect, inaccurate and unjust
criticisms of findings previously
reported by Dr. Wakefield and 12 other
co-authors. More significantly,
Defendants accused Dr. Wakefield of
fraud and of fraudulently and
intentionally manipulating and
falsifying data and diagnoses in
connection with a clinical paper he
co-authored called Ileal-lymphoid-nodular
hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and
pervasive developmental disorder in
children, originally published in
the medical journal The Lancet in 1998
(the “Lancet Paper”). Defendants’ false
and defamatory allegations have been
widely disseminated by Defendants
through the BMJ and other sources since
their original publication."
Wait a minute. Didn't all this
happen in Britain? Shouldn't a
lawsuit be filed there, not in Texas?
Nope. The Jurisdiction is properly
in Texas for the reason stated just
below. Brian Deer, and the other
Defendants, will have to grab their
checkbooks, jump on an airplane, fly to
Austin, Texas, and find themselves an
attorney firm to represent them in this
action. Why? Read this:
"This Court has personal jurisdiction
over the Defendants pursuant to the
Texas Long-Arm Statute and consistent
with the requirements of Due Process
because the Defendants purposefully
availed themselves of the privileges,
benefits, advantages, and profits of
conducting their affairs in the State of
Texas by directing a significant and
regular flow of publications, including
periodicals, journals, articles,
subscriptions, and electronic media to
institutional and
individual residents of this State.
Defendants further committed a tort,
which is the subject of this suit, in
whole or in part, in this State, to wit,
authoring, editing, and approving
articles and making statements with
knowledge or intent that said articles
be published and statements be made and
directed to residents of this State,
including, but not limited to Plaintiff
at his residence in Austin, Texas. Said
articles, publications and statements
contained false and defamatory
allegations about Plaintiff Dr.
Wakefield and his affairs, business and
reputation in the State of Texas as
detailed herein."
This is going to be
fun. Why? This case is NOT
going to be a Kangaroo Court conducted
on behalf of the
Vaccine Construction like the
so-called hearings in front of the
British General Medical Council (BMC).
This will be a REAL Court, with REAL
rules, and a requirement for REAL
evidence standards. Frankly,
neither Brian Deer, Fiona Godlee, nor
the British Medical Journal (BMJ) stand
a chance in this forum. So far
they controlled the battlefield.
Now they stand in a minefield, and Andy
Wakefield has the minefield actuator
button in his hand.
Details of the
case...
You can read the whole Texas filing by
clicking
here. Before you do that let
me give you a few highlights. For
a short read, click
here to read the "Demand Letter"
sent to the British Medical Journal,
Brian Deer, and Fiona Godlee on November
10th, 2011. The letter lays out
the basis of the claim against the
Defendants and demands retraction of the
original articles and protection of the
information relied on. Of course,
the Defendants failed to respond.
Hence the lawsuit.
You can read the Plaintiff's Exhibits by
clicking
here.
Some highlights of the filing that will
make you tingle:
"Defendant BMJ Publishing Group LTD
which does business as The British
Medical Journal, BMJ Group, and BMJ
(hereinafter collectively “BMJ”) is a
British limited liability company
organized under the laws of the United
Kingdom that may be served with process
pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Hague
Convention by serving this Original
Petition via international registered
mail as follows: BMJ Publishing Group
LTD, BMA House, Tavistock Square,
London, WC1H 9JP, United Kingdom.
Issuance of Citation for BMJ Publishing
Group LTD d/b/a The British Medical
Journal, BMJ Group and BMJ is requested
at this time.
Defendant Brian Deer is a citizen and
resident of the United Kingdom who may
be served with process pursuant to
Section 10(a) of the Hague Convention on
the Service Abroad of Judicial and
Extra-Judicial Documents in Civil and
Commercial Matters (“Hague Convention”)
via international registered mail as
follows: Brian Deer, 65 Herne Hill
House, Railton Road, London, SE24 OEF,
United Kingdom. Issuance of Citation for
Brian Deer is requested at this time.
Defendant Dr. Fiona Godlee is a
citizen and resident of the United
Kingdom who may be served with process
pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Hague
Convention via international registered
mail as follows: Dr. Fiona Godlee, BMA
House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H
9JP, United Kingdom. Issuance of
Citation for Dr. Fiona Godlee is
requested at this time.
Venue in this defamation lawsuit is
mandatory in Travis County, Texas
pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE
§15.017, because Travis County was the
residence of Plaintiff, Dr. Wakefield,
at the time of the accrual of the causes
of action alleged herein.
3.2 The amount in controversy is
within the jurisdictional range
appropriate to this Court’s subject
matter jurisdiction."
According to Texas law, Brian Deer, the
BMJ, and Fiona Godlee only have a
limited amount of time to respond to the
lawsuit before Wakefield files for a
Default Judgment. I don't know
what those time limits are yet, as I
just got the initial information last
night, and haven't been able to
interview the attorneys yet.
But, once the Defendants are officially
served with the lawsuit they must
Respond with what is called an "Answer"
in Texas. If they don't and a
Default Judgment is asked for and
Ordered by the Court, then the Court
will award EVERYTHING the Plaintiff
Andrew Wakefield asked for. Just
below is what Wakefield is seeking.
V. DEFAMATION - 5.1 Dr. Wakefield
hereby brings this common law cause of
action libel, slander and
defamation against Defendants based on
the malicious publication of false
claims about Dr. Wakefield as detailed
above and incorporated by reference
herein.
5.2 Each of the Defendants knowingly
misrepresented facts with the purpose of
making false accusations against Dr.
Wakefield. These false statements
were published with actual malice.
5.3 These false
claims were known to be false by the
Defendants at the time they were made
and were made and published with the
intent to cause substantial harm to Dr.
Wakefield’s reputation, to open him up
to scorn in his community, and to damage
his livelihood.
5.4 The false
statements, intended by Defendants to
injure Dr. Wakefield in his trade and
profession, constitute defamation per
se, therefore damages are presumed from
the publication of these false
statements.
5.5 Alternatively,
these statements, intended by Defendants
to injure Dr. Wakefield in his trade and
profession, constitute defamation per
quod.
5.6 The malicious
publication of the false statements
about Dr. Wakefield detailed above have
caused and continue to cause actual
general and special damages to Dr.
Wakefield, including, injury to
character and reputation, humiliation,
injury to feelings, and loss of earning
capacity.
VI. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES - 6.1 Because
Defendants acted with actual malice, the
Plaintiff is entitled to recover
exemplary damages as defined by the
Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code §
43.001, et seq.
VII. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT - 7.1 In
addition, Plaintiff seeks a declaratory
judgment that the Defendants’ published
false and misleading statements
regarding Dr. Wakefield and/or the
Lancet Paper.
VIII. -PRAYER - Dr. Wakefield
hereby prays for a trial by jury as to
all disputed issues of fact, and upon
findings appropriate, further prays for
judgment from this Court against the
Defendants for: nominal damages, actual
and compensatory damages, special
damages, including injury to reputation
and character, injury to feelings,
humiliation, loss of earning capacity,
exemplary damages pursuant to TEX. CIV.
PRAC. & REM. CODE §41.001, et. seq.,
declaratory relief, costs and expenses,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest
as allowed by law, and for such other
and further relief to which he may be
justly entitled.
In short, Brian Deer, and the BMJ have
no choice but to show up in Texas and
fight it out. If they don't it is
likely to be the end of the BMJ, and
Brian Deer, for Britain honors claims
found in the US Courts. There
would, in fact, be a legal finding
that NONE of what Brian Deer said was
true.
Of course the Autism Community already
knows that...
And, stay tuned.
Tim Bolen - Consumer
Advocate