Friday, April 4, 2008

Welcome to the "I am Kathleen" Scavenger Hunt

Yes, I too am (almost) Kathleen. Along with most blogs linking to Autism Hub and many others, Asperger Square is named in the frivolous subpoena received by Kathleen Seidel of Yes, that's right. Asperger Square, whatever that is. I have not taken offense at the slight variation in my name used by in the link to this blog. I was just happy to have the link from such an important site. Now I see that I have narrowly escaped being a party to this legal action. Whew!

Misspellings, omissions, etc. can be beneficial. Apparently, this foolishness pertains to the case of Lisa Sykes, leading me to note a small irony. I have, as far as I can recall, referenced the Sykes case once, obliquely. In that case, the name was misspelled intentionally, for humorous purposes. I wondered at the time if anyone even noticed the reference, since it was never mentioned by any commenter.

In the spirit of ludicrous games, I announce today a scavenger hunt. Can you find the reference to Sykes in this blog's archives? Please answer with only "yes" or "no" to allow others to join in the fun.

Scavenger hunts can be entertaining, and are much more civil than the witch hunt being conducted by Sykes and attorney Clifford Shoemaker. Be sure to check out the others who have found themselves to be Kathleen here and here and well, pretty much everywhere you look. We are all Kathleen. We will not be silenced.


  1. I'm a bit jealous of everyone listed by the subpoena. I want to be on it. Neurodiversity does have one of my videos somewhere on the site. Can I file a motion to be added to the subpoena? If anyone can help me be named on the subpoena, I would appreciate it. I don't have any connection to Ms. Siedel, but I have exchanged some emails with Dave. I don't have any connection to the pharmaceutical industry, other than being an occassional customer. I'm not religious, though I have been known to attend a church when I was young. I'm itchin to be a Kathleen too. Darn it.

  2. You are, CS, you are one of us. :)

  3. I feel for you cs, not to brag or anything, but I'm on the condemned list in about three different incarnations... you can have one of mine if you want. :-) BC was listed twice if I'm not mistaken, maybe he'll give you one of his.

    I'm sure Kathleen would love to add your website to her list, that way you'd be in line for any other attacks on bloggers and website owners. (though I hope there are no more on Kathleen, I think one is enough...)

  4. "Yes, that's right. Asperger Square, whatever that is."

    I spotted that too -- in fact, it's one of the things that initially tipped me off that the whole list was nothing but a cut-an-paste of Kathleen's blogroll, as I have just explained in my latest WordPress post.

    CS: I was left out too. :-(

    Camille: Gloat on your own time! >:-p


  5. dkm,
    Another invisible autistic adult?

    And yes, according to some there are really only 3 or 4 of us on the Hub. My next post may well be titled, "I Am Autism Diva."

  6. I was aghast to learn that I'd left out the "8"!!! This sorry situation has been fixed, as has the equally sorry and totally inadvertent omission of dkmnow's blog.

    Thanks to you all for your comradeship, and for being as ticked off about this as I am.

  7. Kathleen can tell you that according to Rick Rollens, she and I are one and the same person... soooo realy there's just Kathleen who does nothing but blog 24/7/365 as me and as herself and as dkmnow... Bev Square whatever.... she made all of cs's videos... She's a busy lady. (I'm kidding Mr. Shoemaker, really she's only herself, but now a few dozen people are also Kathleen.)
    [/gloating] I wish there was a good reason that Rollens mistook me for Kathleen, I sure am lacking in her talent for research, documentation and writing.

  8. So, I'm having a hard time following this (I guess I came in, in the middle). What are the suing about?

  9. Shitmaker and Shytes need teaching some lessons.

    Shitmaker's in idiot pretending to be a lawyer and the Rev. Shytes is pretending to be a Christian! She's a good advert for Satanism.

  10. Jade,
    Best I can understand it, some are under the impression that there is a League of Neurodiversity and we are on the payroll of Big Pharma. If they are right, I am missing quite a few paychecks. Or maybe they would just like us to shut up. That could be it.

  11. I have looked carefully in the mirror and under the bed, and can say with full confidence that I am not Kathleen Seidel.

    However, I am one of the 100+ bloggers mentioned in item 5 of the subpoena.

    League of Neurodiversity--ooh, will there be cool costumes and noms de neuro? I'm in!

    All joking aside, I am keeping a running list of responses to the Seidel subpoena at I Speak of Dreams. I've added your blog.

  12. "Kathleen can tell you that according to Rick Rollens, she and I are one and the same person"

    Wow.... does that make Kathleen my long lost sister?!

    I'm honoured to share an incarnation with you Diva...

  13. I hope for the sake of their souls that these people are insane and not immoral.

  14. Kathleen, mentioned that the 100 blogs was obviously a really poor cut and paste in haste because in the subpoena there
    s a bit of html code included with all the names. Doesn't this guy have a legal secretary?

  15. liz ditz said,

    "League of Neurodiversity--ooh, will there be cool costumes and noms de neuro? I'm in!"

    Ooh, wouldna that be fun! Where did I put my Spandex?

  16. Mama mia! That's a lotta documents!

    A courtroom full of the authors of all the blogs named (and yeah, I'm jealous too) is something I would certainly like to see. All wearing our best Armani, naturally.

    If those silly people really believed we were all backed by Big Pharma, really, one would think they'd get better lawyers.

  17. Such is the absurdity of the whole thing that I am mentioned a mere twice. Still I think all that latin adds a bit of dignity to the whole silly business.

    Heck there's only one of me, but I don't think the US would be too pleased to see me in person, for a start off there is no guarantee I would get a visa to begin with.

  18. Damn...I never make it to the good lists. ;)

  19. I am not an attorney but I get subpoenaed often.

    The way I read it...the other folks named on the document are not commanded to do anything. It does show shoddy execution on behalf of it's executor.

    I like shoddy shows there are other weaknesses.

    Kathleen is commanded to bring any correspondence to those parties with her.

    L. Rex is not an American so he cannot be commanded by our courts to do anything unless the British Embassy is involved.

    Not gonna happ'n, cap't.

    Also note that many others such as Dr. Kristina Chew and Orac are not named.

    I have also noticed bad press about these individuals has gone into the NT circuit also.

    ~(I am also Kathleen Seidel)

  20. Given 100+ names in the blog roll, surely there must be people besides Larry from outside the US who similarly cannot be commanded to come here (without the involvement of their respective embassies).

    --Another Kathleen! <-- This one, people can copy/paste and circulate or post into their own blogs.

  21. Ok, here is what I learned from reviewing all public documents.

    Shitemaker drew that subpoena up and the clerk of the court processed it. No judge needed. This sort of discovery is known as a SLAPP-strategic lawsuit against public participation and judges and courts know all about them. It is an intimidation tool.

    Now this is interesting. The jurisdiction where the $20 mil Bayer suit has been filed is known as the 'rocket docket' because the bench processes cases rapidly. Attorneys all over are talking about this albeit discreetly! I heard one say this gambit was 'ballsy'.

    The plaintiffs will not be able to drag this out for years and years thus gaining new research (that they probably want to avoid because it will not support mercury damage)

    The bench will tell the plaintiffs to produce against Bayer and there will be little opportunity to stall.

    Anyway, this has made Slashdot-thousands of people are talking about it. No judge wants to be associated with enforcing that subpoena IMO.

    Also, there is no repercussion from being named on that subpoena-one day everyone named will be proud that they were if they are not already! No judge was involved in the creation of the subpoena-the truth is that any attorney can subpoena anyone they want anytime they want. Getting it enforced if the other party calls the bluff is another story. Then the judge gets involved.

    David Kirby made a public statement that he does not support the SLAPP subpoena.

    Looks like there is a limit to how far they will support each other.

    ~I will be Kathleen one more time.


Squawk at me.
Need to add an image?
Use this code [img]IMAGE-URL-HERE[/img]