I am Kathleen but wer macht den schun?

I have been debating how to respond to this nonsense, or whether to respond to it at all. At first I thought it beneath contempt and beneath my dignity to respond, however having seen the strength of feeling on this it would be cowardly of me not to.

For a start off, being named in this subpoena (which has no validity whatever in the UK, where I reside and blog and have my being) actually puts Mr Shoemaker in jeopardy as the law stands in the UK, in that he has published a libellous statement suggesting my web site and blog's complicity in a ridiculous conspiracy for which he owes me an apology. I don't think the fact that he is an attorney in the US gives him any immunity outside of his jurisdiction for that. I want that apology Mr Shoemaker, I want it in public. Do you have a sense of decency Mr Shoemaker? Then use it!

I would suggest to Mr Shoemaker if he is reading this (which I doubt given the factual errors in the subpoena) to look through my blogs and my website so that he will have no need to subpoena the "evidence" It is there in cyberspace in the full public gaze, and he will see what little I have to contribute to what I consider and have always considered to be a side show to the basic issues of Autistic and Disability rights which I am concerned with. Beware too it is covered by copyright and even the reproduction of such in a court document invites penalties. (There is case law on that somewhere in the asinine chronicles of the law as I recall)

Indeed it is a matter of record that I fell out with the Autism hub over the predominance of what I saw as a pre-occupation with the mercury Issue that to me is totally irrelevant to what I am about so far as promoting the much misunderstood and maligned concept of neurodiversity.

As for any financial support I am giving to neurodiversity.com, that is a leg to pull is it not? Never mind pulling your own, you won't have any left to stand upon.

It is a matter of fact that some years ago I attempted to snaffle unto myself the domain name Neurodiversity.Com and was somewhat miffed to discover it being sat upon, by I knew not whom, long before I discovered the identity of the Seidel's

Mr Shoemaker, if you would like me to appear in person in your proceedings, you would need to pay for that, and even then I cannot guarantee that the laws of your country would allow me a visa to travel so your attempts are really nugatory aren't they?

This whole thing reminds me of the classic tale of Canute commanding the waves.

If you look sensibly at this subpoena, you will realise that it is a pathetic attempt to command the impossible.

Nobody, and I mean nobody keeps records of the type that have been requested, and the demons that are being invoked here are invisible. Arthur Miller anybody???

In my jurisdiction I have little doubt that Mr Shoemaker would be regarded as a vexatious litigant, and more than that would fall foul of the standards of the law society and have to answer, just as Dr Wakefield is having to answer to his professional body, where the best advice in law will not protect him from the truth.

We may have stricter libel laws in the UK, and they do cut both ways for sure but hear this ... criminal Robert Maxwell used them for years to suppress adverse comment, but when he died the truth came out, that he was a swindler, and a cheat who abused the law.

Elton John may have used them to extract damages for the accusation that he was gay, but the truth is he is gay and has admitted it.

Worse than that Geoffrey Archer has gone to gaol for perjury over his libel suit.

There are consequences Mr Shoemaker, and if you do not face them in this world, you surely will in the next. Is it worth your immortal soul Mr Shoemaker? Is it?

A retraction is so simple Mr Shoemaker, can we have it? I hope I do not have to extract it through the courts in this land or yours.

Your argument is not my argument and never has been. You have gained precisely nothing in your endeavours and I am sure if Kathleen were to appear, the information that she would give would be to the detriment of your case not in it's favour.