Firestormm
Senior Member
- Messages
- 5,055
- Location
- Cornwall England
British journal battles in Texas court over free speech rights
posted here: http://briandeer.com/solved/slapp-introduction.htm
(Taken from the motion (in full below) filed and presumably written by the defence attorneys)
'This anti-SLAPP motion was filed in Austin on 9 March 2012 by the BMJ, journalist Brian Deer and editor Dr Fiona Godlee, against ex-doctor Andrew Wakefield and his latest "gagging writ" ploy.
The anti-SLAPP statute protects journalists and publishers from baseless libel claims like Dr. Wakefields by providing for a special motion to dismiss to be filed at the outset of the case.
To avoid dismissal, the plaintiff must submit clear and specific evidence to support each essential element of his claims.
Where, as here, the plaintiff cannot satisfy that burden, the Court must dismiss the case and award the defendants their reasonable fees and costs, along with any additional sanctions appropriate to deter the plaintiff from filing similar actions.
Introduction
Two months ago, Dr. Andrew Wakefield was named by Time magazine as one of the Great Science Frauds of modern history.
Last April, the New York Times described him as one of the most reviled doctors of his generation. In 2009, a Special Master presiding over vaccine litigation in the United States Court of Federal Claims recognized that Wakefields 1998 paper in The Lancet medical journal, which suggested a possible link between the lifesaving Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine and the development of autism in children, was considered a scientific fraud.
The Lancet has now fully retracted Wakefields paper, and its editor has stated publicly that the paper was utterly false and that Wakefield deceived the journal.
Wakefields home countrys medical board, the United Kingdoms General Medical Council (GMC), convicted him in 2010 of multiple charges of serious professional misconduct, including dishonesty and unethical conduct.
It further held that his misconduct had been so severe and extensive that the only punishment that would adequately protect the public from him was the permanent revocation of his medical license. As the New York Daily News put it, Hippocrates would puke.
Now the plaintiff in this frivolous libel case, Dr. Wakefield has sued one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world, the BMJ, its editor-in-chief, Dr. Godlee, and one of the most respected investigative journalists in the United Kingdom, Brian Deer.
Wakefields claims challenge a series of articles and editorials in the BMJ in January 2011, entitled Secrets of the MMR Scare. Of course, there is nothing false about the series.
Deers reporting won him a British Press Award, the U.K.s equivalent of the Pulitzer Prize. And the BMJs editorial commentary merely stated what people familiar with the controversy already understood: Wakefields research was a fraud.
As Dr. Wakefield presses this case, he travels the world raising money for The Dr. Wakefield Justice Fund. Last week, he appeared at the Dr. Wakefield: Fight for Truth and Justice Fundraiser at the Hyatt in Long Beach.
For $125 per ticket, attendees could spend a unique and special evening with Dr. Wakefield. The price of admission included a gift bag valued at over $50.
It is a cynical scheme, but not a new one for Wakefield. In recent years, he has filed substantially similar claims against Deer and other U.K. publishers in various proceedings in London. In one of the cases, The Honorable Mr. Justice Eady, one of the most experienced libel judges in the United Kingdom, criticized Dr. Wakefields litigation tactics:
"[Dr. Wakefield] wished to use the existence of libel proceedings for public relations purposes, and to deter critics, while at the same time isolating himself from the downside of such litigation, in having to answer a substantial defence of justification."
Indeed, Dr. Wakefield chose to file suit in Texas after BMJs outside counsel in the UK warned him that he would be forced to post a bond with the High Court if he filed this obviously vexatious case in London.
Dr. Wakefield may have figured that, in Texas, there would be little downside to filing frivolous libel claims and using the suit to raise money and harass his critics. Not so anymore.
To avoid dismissal under our States new anti-SLAPP statute, Dr. Wakefield must submit evidence to support each essential element of his libel claims. He cannot do this for several reasons.
First, the statements he challenges are true. The GMC findings against himnumerous proven charges of dishonest and unethical conductare binding in this case, and they leave no room for Wakefield to argue that he was defamed by Defendants reporting and editorial comment.
And Defendants have overwhelming additional evidence to establish the truth of the challenged statements.
Moreover, even if Dr. Wakefield could produce evidence of falsity and overcome Defendants other defenses, his claims would still fail. He is indisputably a public figure, and therefore must prove that Defendants acted with actual malicethat they knew what they were publishing was false.
Again, this will be an impossible burden for Dr. Wakefield. The reporting he challenges was the product of years of investigation by one of the United Kingdoms best reporters, exhaustively sourced, then subjected to multiple editorial reviews, including an external review by an expert pediatrician.
And Dr. Wakefields credibility on these matters had been so thoroughly eviscerated by his repeated obfuscation, posturing, and outright lying that Defendants had no doubts about the accuracy of their reporting, despite Wakefields protestations of innocence.
Because Dr. Wakefield cannot satisfy his burden under the anti-SLAPP statute, his claims must be dismissed and he must be ordered to pay Defendants their reasonable attorneys fees and costs in defending this action.
Moreover, given Dr. Wakefields long history of frivolous libel litigation, including against Deer in the United Kingdom, the Court should award additional sanctions to deter Dr. Wakefield from attempting to use the legal system to harass and intimidate journalists covering this matter of paramount public concern...'
Read the full anti-SLAPP motion (53 pages) http://briandeer.com/solved/slapp-motion.pdf
Read the declaration of Brian Deer in support of the motion (101 pages) http://briandeer.com/solved/slapp-deer-declaration.pdf
Wakefield's SLAPP suit petition (17 pages) http://briandeer.com/solved/slapp-wakefield-petition.pdf
posted here: http://briandeer.com/solved/slapp-introduction.htm
(Taken from the motion (in full below) filed and presumably written by the defence attorneys)
'This anti-SLAPP motion was filed in Austin on 9 March 2012 by the BMJ, journalist Brian Deer and editor Dr Fiona Godlee, against ex-doctor Andrew Wakefield and his latest "gagging writ" ploy.
The anti-SLAPP statute protects journalists and publishers from baseless libel claims like Dr. Wakefields by providing for a special motion to dismiss to be filed at the outset of the case.
To avoid dismissal, the plaintiff must submit clear and specific evidence to support each essential element of his claims.
Where, as here, the plaintiff cannot satisfy that burden, the Court must dismiss the case and award the defendants their reasonable fees and costs, along with any additional sanctions appropriate to deter the plaintiff from filing similar actions.
Introduction
Two months ago, Dr. Andrew Wakefield was named by Time magazine as one of the Great Science Frauds of modern history.
Last April, the New York Times described him as one of the most reviled doctors of his generation. In 2009, a Special Master presiding over vaccine litigation in the United States Court of Federal Claims recognized that Wakefields 1998 paper in The Lancet medical journal, which suggested a possible link between the lifesaving Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine and the development of autism in children, was considered a scientific fraud.
The Lancet has now fully retracted Wakefields paper, and its editor has stated publicly that the paper was utterly false and that Wakefield deceived the journal.
Wakefields home countrys medical board, the United Kingdoms General Medical Council (GMC), convicted him in 2010 of multiple charges of serious professional misconduct, including dishonesty and unethical conduct.
It further held that his misconduct had been so severe and extensive that the only punishment that would adequately protect the public from him was the permanent revocation of his medical license. As the New York Daily News put it, Hippocrates would puke.
Now the plaintiff in this frivolous libel case, Dr. Wakefield has sued one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world, the BMJ, its editor-in-chief, Dr. Godlee, and one of the most respected investigative journalists in the United Kingdom, Brian Deer.
Wakefields claims challenge a series of articles and editorials in the BMJ in January 2011, entitled Secrets of the MMR Scare. Of course, there is nothing false about the series.
Deers reporting won him a British Press Award, the U.K.s equivalent of the Pulitzer Prize. And the BMJs editorial commentary merely stated what people familiar with the controversy already understood: Wakefields research was a fraud.
As Dr. Wakefield presses this case, he travels the world raising money for The Dr. Wakefield Justice Fund. Last week, he appeared at the Dr. Wakefield: Fight for Truth and Justice Fundraiser at the Hyatt in Long Beach.
For $125 per ticket, attendees could spend a unique and special evening with Dr. Wakefield. The price of admission included a gift bag valued at over $50.
It is a cynical scheme, but not a new one for Wakefield. In recent years, he has filed substantially similar claims against Deer and other U.K. publishers in various proceedings in London. In one of the cases, The Honorable Mr. Justice Eady, one of the most experienced libel judges in the United Kingdom, criticized Dr. Wakefields litigation tactics:
"[Dr. Wakefield] wished to use the existence of libel proceedings for public relations purposes, and to deter critics, while at the same time isolating himself from the downside of such litigation, in having to answer a substantial defence of justification."
Indeed, Dr. Wakefield chose to file suit in Texas after BMJs outside counsel in the UK warned him that he would be forced to post a bond with the High Court if he filed this obviously vexatious case in London.
Dr. Wakefield may have figured that, in Texas, there would be little downside to filing frivolous libel claims and using the suit to raise money and harass his critics. Not so anymore.
To avoid dismissal under our States new anti-SLAPP statute, Dr. Wakefield must submit evidence to support each essential element of his libel claims. He cannot do this for several reasons.
First, the statements he challenges are true. The GMC findings against himnumerous proven charges of dishonest and unethical conductare binding in this case, and they leave no room for Wakefield to argue that he was defamed by Defendants reporting and editorial comment.
And Defendants have overwhelming additional evidence to establish the truth of the challenged statements.
Moreover, even if Dr. Wakefield could produce evidence of falsity and overcome Defendants other defenses, his claims would still fail. He is indisputably a public figure, and therefore must prove that Defendants acted with actual malicethat they knew what they were publishing was false.
Again, this will be an impossible burden for Dr. Wakefield. The reporting he challenges was the product of years of investigation by one of the United Kingdoms best reporters, exhaustively sourced, then subjected to multiple editorial reviews, including an external review by an expert pediatrician.
And Dr. Wakefields credibility on these matters had been so thoroughly eviscerated by his repeated obfuscation, posturing, and outright lying that Defendants had no doubts about the accuracy of their reporting, despite Wakefields protestations of innocence.
Because Dr. Wakefield cannot satisfy his burden under the anti-SLAPP statute, his claims must be dismissed and he must be ordered to pay Defendants their reasonable attorneys fees and costs in defending this action.
Moreover, given Dr. Wakefields long history of frivolous libel litigation, including against Deer in the United Kingdom, the Court should award additional sanctions to deter Dr. Wakefield from attempting to use the legal system to harass and intimidate journalists covering this matter of paramount public concern...'
Read the full anti-SLAPP motion (53 pages) http://briandeer.com/solved/slapp-motion.pdf
Read the declaration of Brian Deer in support of the motion (101 pages) http://briandeer.com/solved/slapp-deer-declaration.pdf
Wakefield's SLAPP suit petition (17 pages) http://briandeer.com/solved/slapp-wakefield-petition.pdf
it looks like Deer hasn't read conclusions of the the High Court judge Mitting on Walker Smith GMC appeal, quashing all the reasons for alleged 'fraud'. 
