"Although Seidel has been a remarkably diligent blogger on autism-vaccine litigation, I can find no indication that she is in possession of specialized knowledge that Shoemaker would not be able to obtain for his clients through more ordinary means."
That's all it takes for a Motion to Quash.
Also, she won't get sanctions. (Unless the Judge Sanctions them on other grounds.)
The Sanctions Rule (Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with similar state court rules across the states) requires that the party seeking sanctions prepare a motion limited to the issue(s) expressly sanctionable - and send the Motion to the other side for a period of time (Fed rule 30 day "safe harbor" period) telling them in a letter that in X days, if you do not remove, rescind or otherwise eliminate the offending pleading I will file the Sanctions Motion with the Court.
So, no it won't fly here. The Safe Harbor rule was not followed.
Greetings! Just dropped by, look forward to commenting on your blog. Have a NICE Day! Terry
atheist-theory.blogspot.com
Welcome Terry. Judging from your blog I'll anticipate some lively comments.
I thought you and your readers might want to have a peek at Shoemaker's motivations. Seidel's latest two posts, detailing Shoemaker's venality and ... well, put your own epithets there.
Billing the Adversary
Numerous decisions issued over the twenty year history of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) document the extent to which the limits on attorney compensation have been tested by practitioners seeking remuneration from its taxpayer-financed coffers. The following review summarizes decisions involving the recently-sanctioned VICP specialist Clifford Shoemaker, Esq. -- a central instigator of the campaign to convince the public of the speculative, scientifically unsupported hypothesis that a significant number of cases of autism result from vaccine injury, co-founder of the Institute for Chronic Illnesses, and a founding member its Institutional Review Board, which sponsors and provides ethical oversight of medical research and experimentation on autistic children and adolescents conducted by his long-time colleague Dr. Mark Geier.
Inspecting the Outstretched Palm
The potential for procedural and billing improprieties by Vaccine Injury Compensation Program petitioners’ attorneys — especially those representing numerous clients with similar, speculative claims — is made painfully evident in Special Master Denise Vowell’s recent fee and cost decision in Carrington v. HHS, Case 99-495V (Fed.Cl.Spec.Mstr., June 18, 200
(unpublished), posted to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims website three days ago.
Numerous decisions issued over the twenty year history of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) document the extent to which the limits on attorney compensation have been tested by practitioners seeking remuneration from its taxpayer-financed coffers. The following review summarizes decisions involving the recently-sanctioned VICP specialist Clifford Shoemaker, Esq. -- a central instigator of the campaign to convince the public of the speculative, scientifically unsupported hypothesis that a significant number of cases of autism result from vaccine injury, co-founder of the Institute for Chronic Illnesses, and a founding member its Institutional Review Board, which sponsors and provides ethical oversight of medical research and experimentation on autistic children and adolescents conducted by his long-time colleague Dr. Mark Geier.
Commenting by HaloScan
