A website has recently been launched so that you can donate to Wakefield's Legal Justice Fund. A legal fund such as this may be set up as a non-profit, tax-exempt charity. The questions arise; what can one do with the funds once litigation has concluded and why does he need this fund since he is not impoverished and has also enlisted the legal services of his friend, William Parrish? Parrish, by the way is not an expert in defamation/libel law but rather an intellectual property and business tort lawyer.
Another question arises and that is, why did the Wakefield camp wait until nearly a year, when the statute of limitations for libel was up if the BMJ series about him was so damaging and defamatory? The first BMJ report on Wakefield was published 5 January 2011 and Wakefield filed suit on 3 January 2012. Wakefield has unsuccessfully sued Deer in the UK and was Wakefield's undoing actually because the discovery provided Mr. Deer with the children's anonymised medical records. A formidable hurdle for Wakefield to clear in his latest debacle is Texas' Anti-SLAPP law which not only may not allow him to present his case to a jury but leaves him vulnerable to court, legal and punitive costs owed to Brian Deer and Fiona Godlee (editor of the BMJ). Of course this will be interesting to see how it plays out in the end but I don't think it will end well for Dr. Wakefield, although that may be what he intends.
As usual, Liz Ditz is aggregating various media discussions on this topic.
People are still paying attention to Wakefield? Or is lack of attention why he's suing?
ReplyDeleteSince the legal experts feel that this lawsuit is likely to be dismissed early on, which Dr. Wakefield's lawyers must know, will the remainder of the " legal justice fund" be made available for Dr. Wakefield's day-to-day expenses?
ReplyDeleteThe very idea of taking money from the autism community in order to give it to lawyers for a man who had no reputation to lose when the journalism was done fills me with disgust.
ReplyDeleteHave these people no sham at all?
@ Anonymous 1, I would speculate that Wakefield needs to be relevant and has been questioned severely by his proponents as to why he won't defend himself. He stands to lose his income entirely if he alienates them or they begin to question him to the point that their loyalty diminishes.
ReplyDelete@ Prometheus, I've wondered this myself, especially given that "annual memberships" are for sale and this suit just isn't going to last very long.
@ Anonymous 2, I couldn't agree more although I suspect it's the "deeper" pockets that are probably making the highest contributions.
There's just no knowing how low this guy can go.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the "1-Year Membership" suggests the possibility of multiple future suits against other Wakefield critics?
ReplyDelete...what can one do with the funds once litigation has concluded and why does he need this fund...?
ReplyDeleteFunds may be to hedge against getting SLAPPed with defense fees and punitive damages.
Win the suit or lose it, Wakefield builds his "Martyr Andy" brand, which is his source of bread and butter. He's having to work for it a bit now; I expect he can no longer coast on former (in)glories for his speaker's fees.
"A legal fund such as this may be set up as a non-profit, tax-exempt charity. "
ReplyDeleteIn this case it wasn't. From their website: "Donations and Memberships are not tax deductable"
Mr. Wakefield waited until the statute of limitations on Mr. Deer's "Wakefield's "autistic enterocolitis" under the microscope " article in the BMJ.
http://briandeer.com/solved/bmj-enterocolitis.htm
Mr. Wakefield also didn't seem to raise a fuss when a judge in the US discussed his research thus: "“autistic enterocolitis theory not been accepted into gastroenterology textbooks, but that theory, and Dr Wakefield’s role in its development, have been strongly criticised as constituting defective or fraudulent science.”"
The idea that the research could be termed fraud is not new to the BMJ.
"A legal fund such as this may be set up as a non-profit, tax-exempt charity. "
DeleteIn this case it wasn't. From their website: "Donations and Memberships are not tax deductable"
Mr. Wakefield waited until the statute of limitations on Mr. Deer's "Wakefield's "autistic enterocolitis" under the microscope " article in the BMJ.
http://briandeer.com/solved/bmj-enterocolitis.htm
I noticed that too and should have completed my thought. Anyway, I wonder if this was thrown together so last minute that they didn't have time to file for an exemption?
Oh and of course, you know best, right?
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly are you talking about, Anon? The blog post links all the sources - what is there not to know?
Delete