• 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.

Judy Mikovits has been arrested

jace

Off the fence
Messages
856
Location
England
Those are not "facts as we know them". Where did you get this information ? This information is not in the public domain, unless you count numerous posts in online forums from various people. Is that reliable information ? Good luck with that.

Facts in public domain :

Dr Mikovits under investigation by Science magazine for research misconduct.
Dr Mikovits research materials reported as stolen from WPI around the time of her firing.
Dr Mikovits is under arrest.

Where did you get all the extra information in your post ?

They are on Public Record. I give the Science Insider links as well as XrX and Oslers Web. I note you omit the dates, which I find very telling.

22nd Sep BWG published
29th Sep. Judy fired by phone and locked out of Lab in the evening at or outside her Reno pied-a-terre - this was reported at the time. The date is in the Science Insider report. At that time, we were told that Judy did not have her personal notebooks, and that the locks were changed on the lab.
30th Sep Judy arrives back in Ventura at 11:30, having driven all night
30th Sep ERV blog

26th Oct Annette Whittemore on Nevada Newsmakers

4th Nov Writ issued
18th Nov Judy arrested in Ventura County
20th Nov Mount Sinai Conference, that Judy was to attend.

As far as I know, Max Pfost is still missing.
 

Cort

Phoenix Rising Founder
People who just want their stuff back don't usually manage to send nine policemen into a friend's house to look for the stuff. (The police found nothing--no stuff.)

As Mary Schweitzer commented on Hillary's blog, "This is the sort of thing reserved for child molesters, not contested NIH grants." Mary also wrote, "I've spent my life in or around universities - I was a professor before my collapse in 1994, and my husband has been a professor at U of Delaware for 30 years - we're shocked."

I think Mary is missing some facts here.

The WPI has nothing to do with the arrest. They filed a police report when the documents were missing and brought a lawsuit to get their data back. Based on the facts of that lawsuit and I guess the police investigation it was the Judge who issued the warrant for her arrest - not the WPI. .
 

Cort

Phoenix Rising Founder
Indeed. I can't get the legal authorities to do anything, despite ample evidence of crimes committed against me. And since when does returning home constitute a flight risk? Regardless of whether the accusations stick, this is class justice.

What also strikes me as odd is that supposedly there exists only a single copy of those notes. If true, that is remarkably unprofessional.

It seems strange to me as well.
 

Cort

Phoenix Rising Founder
I think it's only fair to point out that the Whittemores are a very influential family in Nevada. That helped them get the WPI built in the first place. But if they requested that a warrant be issued for someone against whom they had a lawsuit, it would be given more weight than if the average Joe Blow made a similar request.

On the surface, it seems very unusual that a fugitive from justice warrant would be issued in a case like this. It seems a fairly drastic escalation. And realistically, someone who really was fleeing justice wouldn't go home from Reno to Ventura.

I can't help but wonder if moving this from the civil to the criminal realm doesn't give them probable cause to conduct a search of Dr Mikovits' home, car, etc., and if that isn't the point.

(For the record, I'm not backing either horse in this race.)

I don't if the Whittemores have any influence in the court system or not but I imagine that, as a matter of course, if some leaves the state after being told to stay in the state then a warrant will be issued for their arrest.
 

Cort

Phoenix Rising Founder
Yes, I admit that at this point there could be so many different reasons for why this is happening. My question though is why didn't they get the information from her BEFORE they fired her?

Obviously in hindsight they should have done this and I imagine that larger corporations and Research Institutes are sure to secure all information in someones office BEFORE they fire them - but the WPI is a very small organization and they probably didn't even think that this could happen. They were naive....

I imagine it won't happen again!
 

Cort

Phoenix Rising Founder
To have been responsible for having that done to a respected scientist who has only ever acted with absolute professionalism is worse than shame, its absolutely and utterly appalling, it shows the WPI in a different light for me without any doubt, I will not be giving them a jot of support again.

How about possibly absconding with years of research data thus potentially causing the WPI to abandon fruitful work on CFS? How about taking off with proprietary research information that your contract clearly states you have no claim to? Do you agree with that? Have your opinions changed about Dr. Mikovits as well?
 

Cort

Phoenix Rising Founder
Here is the official story: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/11/lawsuit-filed-against-chronic-fatigue.html

Jill, why would the WPI try to set-up Judy for something she did not do? She obviously stole the lab notebooks since they disappeared after she locked them up in her desk drawer , but the real question is why??

That's a very good question. Why not simply copy the notes and flashdrives and return the originals to the WPI? Then you don't ahve to retain an expensive lawyer, you're not liable for damages, the lawsuit is dropped and you can leave the state and go to your home in (relative) peace.

The issue may not be what the WPI doesn't want out but what Judy Mikovits doesn't want the WPI to see. Given that the documents have not been returned - and the consequences of not returning them appear to be pretty harsh - why not just copy and return them? What would be so important that you would risk jail time, heavy financial penalities, a court fight etc.? THere must be a reason for that - but what is it?
 

leela

Senior Member
Messages
3,290
Cort, it appears she was *already* in another state when the retraining order was issued. In the version we have seen, anyway, it says nothing about leaving the state. Either way, her lawyers would surely have advised her of the urgency of returning to NV if the felony count of fugitive was in play.

This appears to be an added criminal charge, that cam out of nowhere. There appear to be separate hearings for the two charges, both scheduled for the same day, in different states. I am confused by why, when arrested on a friday, she has to wait until tuesday to see a judge for a bail hearing.

Who would just sit at home if they were "fleeing from justice". Give the woman, and her legal team some credit :)
 

Cort

Phoenix Rising Founder
OK, so what do we know?

I've been doing a bit of research. Let's look at the facts as we know them. A week after the publication of the BWG results, on the evening of the 29th September outside her house in Reno, Judy got a phone call from Annette Whittemore to tell her she was fired. Judy did what we all do at that point, she got in her car and set off for hubby and home in Ventura. She arrived there at 11:30 am having driven all night, and was met by Lilly Meehan, who testifies that there were no lab notebooks or computer gear in her car.

The last time Judy had had access to her lab, she was still an employee of the WPI. Once she was fired she was locked out.


The restraining order was issued on the 4th November, more than a month after Judy was locked out of the lab.

Two weeks later, Judy is arrested in at her home in Ventura County, where she had been, apart from fulfilling pre-existing obligations, since the 30th September.

Things don't add up. There was far too long between the firing and lock-out and the writ. Why arrest Judy at a time that will prevent her attending the Mount Sinai symposium?

Here's a timeline with links
22nd Sept. BWG published
29th Sept (pm) Judy fired http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/10/xmrv-researcher-fired.html, http://treatingxmrv.blogspot.com/2011/10/square-one.html
30th Sept (am) Arrives home in Ventura County. Lilly Meehan witnesses. https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=235983363131553 (not sure if people who are not friends of Lilly can see this link. Please supply another public one if you have it)
30th Sept. ERV publishes the Gelgate blog

Oct 19th Rituximab Study published http://www.plosone.org/article/metr...8;jsessionid=D4DAC1F728D21AB12ACAFC8FC7FBCB27
Oct 26th, Annette Whittemore on Nevada Newsmakers http://www.nevadanewsmakers.com/video/default.asp?showID=1375&forumid=331851

Nov. 4th Writ issued http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/11/lawsuit-filed-against-chronic-fatigue.html http://treatingxmrv.blogspot.com/2011/11/game-with-no-winner.html http://www.oslersweb.com/blog.htm?post=823082
November 18th Judy arrested http://treatingxmrv.blogspot.com/2011/11/china-syndrome-at-wpi.html http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/11/controversial-cfs-researcher-arr.html
November 20th Mount Sinai conference with Dr Endlander - Judy was to attend.

Thanks for the timeline - it was very helpful. Why wait such a long time? Because they were trying to work this out with Judy before they filed an expensive lawsuit that they knew would turn out to be a public relations nightmare for them.

Judy can (or could :)) pick up the phone and talk to any of those people any time and she will be able to in the future.

I want to point out that if that timeline is correct the WPI actually showed a good of restraint by waiting for a month before they filed a lawsuit. They obviously tried to work it out some other way.

Imagine if you were a researcher working on a project for a long period of time and you came to work one day and all your data was gone!

I would be boiling mad! I think they showed some restraint by waiting a month. There's a lot of sentiment about Judy being the victim and that's understandable given that she's spending a few days in jail - but the WPI has been victimized as well. They spent alot of money and time and I'm sure had a huge emotional investment in that data. That is what, after all, they hoped could cure their daughter - and to come to work one day and find it gone......and then to be unable to get it back.

That would be terribly upsetting.
 

leela

Senior Member
Messages
3,290
Neilk said 'are they using donations' a reasonable question I would have thought? I also believe in innocent until proven guilty, and I see nowhere in this thread that points to anyone making patients look like lunatics, apart from people shouting in capitals.

What mary said.
 

maryb

iherb code TAK122
Messages
3,602
Location
UK
How about possibly absconding with years of research data thus potentially causing the WPI to abandon fruitful work on CFS? How about taking off with proprietary research information that your contract clearly states you have no claim to? Do you agree with that? Have your opinions changed about Dr. Mikovits as well?

This is absolute speculation, 'how about' 'possibly'? what on earth does that mean? I am not speculating about Dr Mikovits character, she has proven her worth to me in every way, in all her work and at every conference she has attended over the past 2 years. Am I wrong in thinking that people are innocent until proven guilty in the USA? No my opinions about her haven't changed, if anything I respect her more now for having gone through this situation, that has been brought about by the actions of the WPI.
 

leela

Senior Member
Messages
3,290
Excuse me, but the data was, prior to its going missing, available to anyone authorised in the lab or facility to see.
How could it be that suddenly there's something secret in there? It has never been under lock and key with respect to authorised personnel.
 

Waverunner

Senior Member
Messages
1,079
This is absolute speculation, 'how about' 'possibly'? what on earth does that mean? I am not speculating about Dr Mikovits character, she has proven her worth to me in every way, in all her work and at every conference she has attended over the past 2 years. Am I wrong in thinking that people are innocent until proven guilty in the USA? No my opinions about her haven't changed, if anything I respect her more now for having gone through this situation, that has been brought about by the actions of the WPI.

It's funny that everything you say is NOT based on speculation while everything other people say IS based on speculation. The fact that you have met Dr Mikovits is no proof whatsoever that she is innocent nor that the WPI did something wrong nor that she never knew about the court orders. We will see where things go from here on Tuesday.
 

Joopiter76

Senior Member
Messages
154
I cant believe that if the data was so important noone did a regulary backup an kept it at another place. The risk of a hard disk failure is always there just drop the notebook and it may occur, there is for sure a cloud and hard disk backup at another place.

to have one notebook incl. drives with all the science information and nothing else is quite unbelievable and careless.
 

maryb

iherb code TAK122
Messages
3,602
Location
UK
Waverunner, speculation, facts and opinions mean very different things, I am not speculating about Dr Mikovits, that is my opinion of her, and of the WPI, you of course are entitled to your opinions and speculations.
 

usedtobeperkytina

Senior Member
Messages
1,479
Location
Clay, Alabama
I am going to speak on the libel issue.

I have some personal experience in this matter as I was sued for libel and slander when I was editor and publisher of a local newspaper. The lawsuit included claims of libel based on comments made on the newspaper discussion forum also. Additionally, it included verbal comments I was alleged to have said to a source and information printed in the newspaper. (He didn't leave anything out, huh?)

Also, the biggest libel case that went to the US Supreme Court came from my state, Alabama. That case is New York Times v. Sullivan. That case set a standard for libel in the case of reporters and the publishers.

Just as a sidenote, I did not commit libel or slander and the attorney who filed the $2 million lawsuit against me is now sitting in prison for running a Ponzi scheme, which is what I was reporting on. (Wonder why I closed the paper? Well, that, and I was sick.)

Also, an Internet forum libel case came from Alabama. This is Griffins v. Luban. In that case, the decision was that an Alabama court that ruled a Minnesota defendant failed to show and thus gave a default judgement was right. In other words, the Alabama court had jurisdiction even though the defendant did the posting on the Internet from Minnesota.

One other noted case concerning Internet libel defined "publisher." Before Internet, a publisher (normally of printed material or T.V. or radio) had responsibility for libelous statements through their company because they had editorial control. In other words, they acted as a filter. They decided what went in the publication or over the airwaves. Thus, even if the info came from a third party, they were responsible because they did not filter it out.

However, a library or book store is not considered a publisher as they have no editorial control over the material. They are distributors.

This principle was applied in the Stratton, Oakmont, Inc. et al v. Prodigy Services Company. This was defamatory information put over an Internet forum from a third party. In that case, Prodigy claimed to be distributors, thus immune to the libel charge. The court said that since Prodigy moderated the forum, they are publishers exercising editorial control.

So, if this forum is moderated, then whatever legal entity owns the site can be held responsible for libelous statements made here that are not quickly removed, even if the information came from an anonymous person posting as a third party.

Now, what is libel? Interestingly, it depends on the person who is the subject of the information.
The basics: The information must be put out for public viewing / listening or readership, identify the person, be false, be defamatory and cause injury or likely to cause injury.

Now we get to an extra requirement depending on whether the person who is the subject of the published information is a public figure, limited purpose public figure or a private citizen.

If the subject is a public figure then he/she must prove there was malice on the part of the publisher. The malice can be in what the publisher came up with on their own, like a reporter's story, or what was allowed by the publisher, as in a letter to the editor, an advertisement, etc. (And by the way, the Sullivan case was concerning an ad from a third party, but The New York Times was still responsible, the U.S. Supreme Court decided. But, Sullivan was a public figure, a police chief in Alabama, and thus had to prove malice on the part of The New York Times. On that basis, Sullivan lost. Court decided The New York Times had no malice.)
If the person is a limited purpose public figure, then the requirement to prove malice comes in on information regarding the part of that person's activities that are appropriate for public concern.
A private citizen or information about a limited purpose public figure that is about the part of their lives that is private does not require that malice be proved.
And by the way, the burden is on the claimant, not the defendant, to prove these things.

Some examples of public figures are politicians and movie stars. Anything and everything about them is appropriate for public discourse, and thus any defamatory information published must also meet the requirement that the person / company responsible had malice.
Some examples of limited purpose public figures are doctors, business leaders and in my lawsuit, an attorney. We claimed he was a limited purpose public figure so claims of betrayal of his clients was a matter of public concern as he was state licensed and was an "officer of the court" and had an ethical obligation to his clients. Also, the lawsuits against him were public record. He was well known and had responsibilities of booster club money. Because the lawsuits were about his business dealings and finances, that was matter of public concern. But what his children do, where his wife worked, his past relationships, etc. had nothing to do with the matter of the lawsuits or his responsibilities as an attorney.
And, its pretty clear what a private citizen is.

Now, what is malice? Malice is motive to harm. But, the Sullivan case broadened that to include "showed reckless disregard" in publishing the matter. So, if they had reason to believe it could be false and made no effort to find out if it is true before publishing it, then malice could be proved.

We had another case here in Bham where a reporter told politicians after a meeting, "I've got you now." Some of her information was inaccurate. They claimed malice because of her statement showing she was "after them."

Another note, malice can be shown if the person defamed contacts the publisher with a request that the defamatory information be removed or that a correction be published and the publisher refuses to do so. It is not required to show malice. But the burden of proof is on the defamed person and he can prove malice if he let the publisher know the info was inaccurate and it was not removed. Refusing to remove or correct inaccurate information when you have been told it is inaccurate would show malice.

The reason for the malice requirement on matters of public concern is so that publishers / reporters will not self-censor out of fear. Basically, the court said it is more important that free debate occur and allow mistakes than to have people afraid to put out information of public concern because they are afraid a detail is inaccurate and they will be sued. But, they should show diligence in trying to find out if is true.

Of course, as in my case, anyone can sue anyone for anything. It's in the court where it is decided whether they met the burden of all the elements. Overall, though, making the burden higher discourages lawsuits just to keep people from putting out information that the public has a right to know. But as in my case, some people are still sued for libel even if though they didn't do it. So don't think that you won't have a lawsuit because you didn't commit libel. Anyone can sue anyone for anything. Then you have to get a lawyer to defend yourself. And that costs money. In my case, I lost $5,000 because that was the deductible on my insurance.

Another point is "identifying the person." I notice something put on the Internet that spoke about claims made against a person but was obviously avoiding naming the person. Just to let you know, identifying the person does not require the name. If the person reading it can discern who it is by other information in the public domain, then the person is identified and if it is libel, then the burden is met. In other words, if people can figure out who it is, then the person has been identified.

The main problem I notice on forums is that people do not understand the difference between an opinion and a fact.
Facts are of particular actions or things said, usually. He did this. Mike broke into her house and stole her money. Politician John Smith paid his mistress with donated money for his campaign. He said, "I hate dogs."
It does not change it into an opinion just be declaring it so. i.e. "In my opinion, Mike broke into her house and stole her money.." Or, "In my opinion, Politician John Smith paid his mistress with donated money for his campaign." "I think he likely said, 'I hate dogs.'"
All of these are statements of fact. If untrue and defamatory and matter of public concern, then it doesn't matter whether "in my opinion" is put in as a qualifier or not.

However, while from a journalistic standpoint and unfairness I don't like it, guessing as to motives is opinion and if a matter of public concern, not libelous. Why someone did something is unprovable. So it is a matter that can be debated, if it is a matter of public concern. As long as the actions / statements are accurate, what people think about them is protected as free speech.

Sorry it is so long. But some were asking. Here is a reference:http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2002dltr0004.html
and http://www.dba-oracle.com/internet_cyberlibel_usa_cases_message_boards_forums.htm

Also, while states may have some differing laws, the primary law on this is federal. So courts look to the federal cases. Reason is because defending oneself from libel always involves free speech or freedom of the press, which is federal law. So, defining and applying that is always involved in the cases.

Tina
 
Messages
75
1. Sorry in advance for my language because I am very frustrated, but what a load of shit this all is. Talk about controversial; only in CFS would something like this occur. The very last thing we sufferers need is more grief and stress. This will put CFS back another year.

2. I'm with Cort, let's stop arguing about who is right and who is wrong and instead focus on the central issue: What do these mysterious, secret lab notes contain regarding our illness? They are obviously very valuable to WPI. Unfortunately, we currently have more unknowns than knowns, and we deserve to know the truth. Only time will tell.