• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

"Criminal Attorney Speaks for Controversial CFS Researcher" Science Insider, 12/5/11

justinreilly

Senior Member
Messages
2,498
Location
NYC (& RI)
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/12/criminal-attorney-speaks-for-con.html?ref=ra

When Judy Mikovits, a researcher well-known for her controversial studies linking a mouse retrovirus to chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), was jailed on a felony charge of being a fugitive from justice, she could not defend herself from behind bars and her criminal attorney chose not to comment. But now she has a new attorney, Scott Freeman, and he has plenty to say about her case. "She maintains her innocence and we anticipate defending her aggressively," says Freeman, who is based in Reno, Nevada. "Obviously, she's not someone who is a criminal."

Mikovits is being charged with possessing stolen property from the Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease (WPI), which is located on the campus of the University of Nevada, Reno. Mikovits worked at WPI for 4 years until being fired in September for insubordination. She helped bring the fledgling WPI to fame with a report she co-authored that ran in Science 2 years ago that tied a mouse retrovirus called XMRV to CFS.

According to an affidavit from a campus police officer that led to her arrest warrant, she told a lab assistant to "illegally enter her former office" and retrieve lab notebooks, a laptop computer, flash drives and correspondence that belonged to the institute. On 18 November, Mikovits, who lives in Ventura, California, was arrested and jailed there on a felony charge of being a fugitive from justice. Bail was set at $100,000 cash. "The original warrant out was extremely dramatic to have a $100,000 cash-only bail for somebody who has no history of being a risk to the community or a risk of flight," says Freeman. "So those are the very significant issues that we're going to be investigating. Why is she not being treated like everybody else?"

Mikovits made bail on 22 November, and turned over the disputed lab notebooks to the Ventura County police. She went to Reno the next day and surrendered to the Washoe County jail, which freed her on her own recognizance.

Freeman argues that, legally speaking, it's unimportant how she obtained the material in dispute. "The question is whether or not she had the criminal intent to permanently deprive the institute of property that belonged to them," he says, adding that he hopes to get the case dismissed.

Mikovits is also the subject of a civil case filed 4 November by WPI over the same property, which it says was "misappropriated." In that case, WPI alleges that she "masterminded" the theft of the property and submitted affidavits from the lab assistant who said he took the material at her behest. A civil attorney for Mikovits initially denied that she possessed the material.

Mikovits will have an arraignment hearing on 10 January, but Freeman says that he will simply request a new court date. "Part of the challenge in representing someone like her is essentially that we're taking a scientist with her extensive credentials and trying to educate her as a client on what it's like to be a defendant in a criminal case," says Freeman. "This is an area she never thought she'd be in in her life, and she's fighting for her life."
 

justinreilly

Senior Member
Messages
2,498
Location
NYC (& RI)
I still support Dr. Mikovits, but it's very disappointing to me that it seems that she lied about not having the IP through her lawyer. It was disconcerting when she said that because it seemed (at least to me) at the time that whoever took the IP might never return it and all that data would be lost.
 
Messages
5,238
Location
Sofa, UK
I've re-read that statement recently Justin, and although I haven't checked the chronology, I think what was said was to the effect that she couldn't return the notebooks and laptop because they weren't in her possession. Which I think was actually true, at the time, if Pfost had them at the time that statement was issued. Somebody might like to check the dates on this. If I'm right, then Dr Mikovits didn't actually lie about this. As has so often been the case, the precise detail of Dr Mikovits' statements might be worth more careful investigation: all too often I've seen people interpret her words as meaning more than what she actually said, and jump to incorrect conclusions as a result.
 

barbc56

Senior Member
Messages
3,657
I've re-read that statement recently Justin, and although I haven't checked the chronology, I think what was said was to the effect that she couldn't return the notebooks and laptop because they weren't in her possession. Which I think was actually true, at the time, if Pfost had them at the time that statement was issued. Somebody might like to check the dates on this. If I'm right, then Dr Mikovits didn't actually lie about this. As has so often been the case, the precise detail of Dr Mikovits' statements might be worth more careful investigation: all too often I've seen people interpret her words as meaning more than what she actually said, and jump to incorrect conclusions as a result.

If you think she was technically not lying, someone might think that she was still complicit as she knew where the notebooks were located.

Both are speculation and could result in jumping to incorrect conclusions.
 

biophile

Places I'd rather be.
Messages
8,977
Whatever happened to the Science journal's investigation over gelslidegate?
 

Enid

Senior Member
Messages
3,309
Location
UK
Thanks for the latest justin - we are hoping (whatever happened) that the case will be dismissed too.
 

taniaaust1

Senior Member
Messages
13,054
Location
Sth Australia
I've re-read that statement recently Justin, and although I haven't checked the chronology, I think what was said was to the effect that she couldn't return the notebooks and laptop because they weren't in her possession. Which I think was actually true, at the time, if Pfost had them at the time that statement was issued. Somebody might like to check the dates on this. If I'm right, then Dr Mikovits didn't actually lie about this. As has so often been the case, the precise detail of Dr Mikovits' statements might be worth more careful investigation: all too often I've seen people interpret her words as meaning more than what she actually said, and jump to incorrect conclusions as a result.

umm gave me something to think about to the point I went back and looked at the court documents and thou I never read Judy's statement .. one court document says "Plaintiffs Opposition asserts a single defence - that Mikovits did not take the Misappropriated Property".

So if that is all which was being said, I guess in a twisted way it isnt perjury and it could be said she didnt lie.
 

Firestormm

Senior Member
Messages
5,055
Location
Cornwall England
I think that is the essence of any 'case' for the defence Tania although if you read the WPI's submission, Mikovits is deemed to have known where the missing property was located and was implicit in its' removal, therefore the 'fact' she might not have been in possession of it at the time is claimed to be no defence at all in law.

Not speculating by the way, that is the essence of the WPI plaintiff 'case' against her: [Wanted to link to WPI submission but the website appears to be down. Will add later if I remember].

Edit:

WPI Website back up:

Reply to Opposition to Motion for preliminary injunction: http://www.wpinstitute.org/docs/ReplyBriefISOMotionforPreliminaryInjunction-final.pdf
 

undcvr

Senior Member
Messages
822
Location
NYC
I am concerned that because of her grudge against WPI that if she felt that if she could not work on the research then she would take it and deprive anyone else the chance to work on it, that is very selfish and not helpful to the CFS community at all.
 

justinreilly

Senior Member
Messages
2,498
Location
NYC (& RI)
I've re-read that statement recently Justin, and although I haven't checked the chronology, I think what was said was to the effect that she couldn't return the notebooks and laptop because they weren't in her possession. Which I think was actually true, at the time, if Pfost had them at the time that statement was issued. Somebody might like to check the dates on this. If I'm right, then Dr Mikovits didn't actually lie about this. As has so often been the case, the precise detail of Dr Mikovits' statements might be worth more careful investigation: all too often I've seen people interpret her words as meaning more than what she actually said, and jump to incorrect conclusions as a result.

I tried to find the letter written by Mikovits lawyer, Lois Hart, that was posted on the other forum and I can't find it. I think it was removed. My recollection was that is said that she was not in possession of the IP nor had she ever been, that they should look elsewhere because others had access to the notebooks and that her 'integrity goes to the bone.' Don't remember the date of it so if it was written before she had physical possession, then some of it was technically true, but the statement that her 'integrity goes to the bone' was shady.

Also the claim that she could not return it because it was not in her possession is not even technically true. She 'caused' the property to be taken (by persuading Pfost to take it) and she could have 'caused' it to be returned.
 

Sam Carter

Guest
Messages
435
I tried to find the letter written by Mikovits lawyer, Lois Hart, that was posted on the other forum and I can't find it. I think it was removed. My recollection was that is said that she was not in possession of the IP nor had she ever been, that they should look elsewhere because others had access to the notebooks and that her 'integrity goes to the bone.' Don't remember the date of it so if it was written before she had physical possession, then some of it was technically true, but the statement that her 'integrity goes to the bone' was shady.

Also the claim that she could not return it because it was not in her possession is not even technically true. She 'caused' the property to be taken (by persuading Pfost to take it) and she could have 'caused' it to be returned.


This article might answer some of your questions, Justin; it says:

"""""""""""

Mikovits attorney, Lois Hart, said her client cannot speak to the media about the case, but she strongly denies any wrongdoing. In an e-mail to ScienceInsider, Hart stressed that "Dr. Mikovits' integrity goes to the bone."

Hart rebutted the charges against her client in a 4 November letter to WPI's counsel that appeared on CFS-related Web sites. (Hart said she did not release the letter, but verified its contents to ScienceInsider.) "All of the allegations of theft, misappropriations, withholding of data and various intellectual property, and items, are incorrect, and untruthful," Hart wrote.

"""""""""""

Also, if you scroll down to the comments section here you'll find a letter from Lois Hart, or at least someone calling herself Lois Hart, writing in defence of Dr Mikovits. (Actually "Dr Mikovitz")
 

justinreilly

Senior Member
Messages
2,498
Location
NYC (& RI)
Up until now, many in the 'scientific community' have been unduly dismissive of Mikovits' work. Now, it will be much worse since the naysayers have something to hang their hat on- that she took the property and lied about it. Prospects for HGRV research are royally screwed now.
 
Messages
5,238
Location
Sofa, UK
If you think she was technically not lying, someone might think that she was still complicit as she knew where the notebooks were located.

Both are speculation and could result in jumping to incorrect conclusions.

No, there was no speculation in what I said, you have misinterpreted my use of the word 'think'. What I said is all completely verifiable with reference to the public documents. I am just not certain my conclusion is correct because I haven't time right now to locate those documents. I was hoping somebody else would check my recollection of these facts.

My comments were based on my recollection of the wording of the statement, which I did check when the allegation of lying about this was levelled at Dr Mikovits. I confirmed when I read that statement that the statement said she did not have them in her possession, and that the statement was issued quite some time ago. Like Justin, I can't lay my hands on that statement now to check the date.

What is needed is to cross-check that statement with the dates in Max Pfost's affidavits. If Pfost's affidavits say he was still in possession of them at a time after Dr Mikovits' statement was issued, then there's no basis for believing that Dr Mikovits' statement was a lie. The allegation of Dr Mikovits lying has been bandied around quite a bit, and as far as I have seen that claim is not backed up by the evidence. The allegation should not be made unless it is proven by the evidence - as you rightly say, it is just speculation otherwise.

It's also important to bear in mind while considering all this that we cannot assume that Pfost's affidavits are accurate. There is a major discrepancy between the two stories in his two affidavits. So we know for sure that not everything in those affidavits is true.
 

leela

Senior Member
Messages
3,290
I am concerned that because of her grudge against WPI that if she felt that if she could not work on the research then she would take it and deprive anyone else the chance to work on it, that is very selfish and not helpful to the CFS community at all.

1. No one knows if she has a "grudge".
2. No one knows if she took anything she wasn't supposed to
3. No one knows if she intended to "deprive" anyone of anything

therefore, no reason to jump to conclusions about selfishness and unhelpfulness quite yet.
 

Firestormm

Senior Member
Messages
5,055
Location
Cornwall England
Also, if you scroll down to the comments section here you'll find a letter from Lois Hart, or at least someone calling herself Lois Hart, writing in defence of Dr Mikovits. (Actually "Dr Mikovitz")

Hey Sam,

I think you are right to question the identity of that particular commentator. I would be amazed if it did indeed originate with Lois Hart the lawyer!
 

leela

Senior Member
Messages
3,290
No 2 is known as she returned the items and hence did have them in her possession. Whether she believed she had some legal right to them thou is a completely different story.

Tanya, my point in number 2 was simply that no one knows yet what items she was entitled to keep with her per her employment agreement, which none of us is privy to. In the context of my post, this speaks to the idea of whether she was having a "grudge" and planning to withhold info from the general public--which is a very large leap of thinking. We also know "the items were returned"--but we do not know what items, nor who returned them as this has not yet been stated.

My point in the total reply to undcvr that you excerpted from was that there is a lot of presuming and assuming and filling in of gaps and thus jumping to conclusions; and that it is always good to consider what we think we know, balanced against what we can really know to be true.
 

Firestormm

Senior Member
Messages
5,055
Location
Cornwall England
Hey Sam,

I think you are right to question the identity of that particular commentator. I would be amazed if it did indeed originate with Lois Hart the lawyer!

Hmm... having read that letter published by Hillary Johnson (date 4/11/11) more thoroughly and compared it to that comment (6/10/11), I am now not so sure the two Louis Hart's are not one and the same person to be honest.

I also noticed Ms. Hart states that the following occurred as a direct result of Dr Mikovits' involvement (from the published letter):

'One of many examples of Dr. Mikovits work and integrity in giving ME/CFS and WPI credibility is that recently a Health Minister in Norway publicly apologized to victims of ME/CFS for not taking the disease seriously, and not treating them properly as they deserved. This resulted because of Dr. Mikovits presentations and one on one talks with many doctors and authorities there last December.'

And I thought it was down to the Norwegians and Rituximab, though I could be wrong - hard to keep up sometimes isn't it?

'The Norwegian government has apologized for its treatment of ME patients after the disease is shown to respond to the anti-cancer drug rituximab.'

http://www.flimecfsforum.com/index....tment-of-me-patients&catid=42:news&Itemid=155
 

Daffodil

Senior Member
Messages
5,875
so is anyone going to tell us whats going on with dr. mikovits now? and what does it mean that roche found XMRV? is anything going to happen?

why do they want to leave us all in the dark? arent we the ones who are dying here?????? they act like we are the ones who matter least.