According to Dr Judy Mikovits lawyer, she was fired by Annette Whittemore on the 29 September 2011 through no fault of her own.
“Dennis Jones, lawyer for Judy Mikovits, also said the reason she was fired by the institute was because she “discovered a series of improper, unethical and possibly illegal acts” by the Whittemores and their lab director.” (1)
So far patients have not been privy to the “acts” that Dr Mikovits discovered. Potentially they are as follows (1).
Tragically patients have had their attention diverted from these grave matters by the simultaneous civil and criminal cases against Dr Mikovits (2,3). The criminal case instigated by the Whittemore’s allegations (dropped because of a lack of credible evidence) and the civil case instigated by them. A fact that the civil case Judge, Judge Brent Adams, who later admitted a conflict of interest, would have been well aware of (4).
In an almost unheard of ruling, Judge Brent Adams denied Dr Mikovits’s her constitutional rights several times, which he himself admitted he had never done before (1,4).
Firstly, Adams made a default judgment against Dr Mikovits while her own lawyer, Dennis Jones, was having medical treatment (1), denying her right to representation.
Secondly, Adams denied her the right to invoke the Fifth Amendment in the civil case when she was also charged with theft of property from the plaintiffs in the criminal case (1,4).
This was a gross violation of her constitutional rights (5). Invoking the Fifth Amendment would be the advice any competent criminal lawyer would give to a person in that situation and the judge would know that. Striking out her reply into court in such circumstances is almost unheard of. Even the judge admitted he had never taken this step before (1,4). So why now? Why deny a postponement so that Dr Mikovits’s lawyer could be present?
Judge Brent Adams subsequently admitted a conflict of interest as he had received substantial donations from the Whittemore’s for his previous election campaign, and stood down as judge but not before ruling in favour of the Whittemores’s in the absence of legal representation for Dr Mikovits.
This is something you might expect in communist China but how can this be allowed in a modern democracy where everyone is supposedly governed by the rule of law and that law is meant to apply equally to all.
Freedoms to do whatever you want if you are rich and powerful, free to be abused if you are not.
Does anyone still seriously believe that Dr Mikovits research notebooks contained trade secrets? If not what could be in them that would be so important that Nevada police still hold them without lawful excuse?