The Judy Stein Junkyard Dog Web Site

Judy Stein wrote:
>
> In article <3788DFF0.6B32@mindspring.com>,
> "Andrew A. Skolnick" wrote:
>
> > Legion-1@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > > Fortunately, TM hasn't figured out how to sue anyone for not publishing
> > > their tripe.
> >
> > Well, the Movement at least has tried. A TM lawyer threatened to do to
> > Oncology Times what TM was doing to JAMA (suing for $194 million plus
> > expenses!) if Oncology Times didn't publish a 3000-word article touting
> > Maharishi Ayur-Veda. See a copy of the lawyer's threat:
> > http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/judyology/oncology1.html
>
> If you read the entire letter, you'll see that Andrew hasn't told
> *quite* the whole story in his post here. Big surprise.
>
> [snip]

"No, you scummy asshole, there wasn't any deceit on the TMers' parts, only on yours and JAMA's."

> > The TM plaintiffs Deepak Chopra, The American Association for Ayur-Vedic
> > Medicine, and the Lancaster Foundation also threatened to refile their
> > $194 million lawsuit against the editor of JAMA, the AMA, and me if JAMA
> > did not publish an article from TM authors. If JAMA would publish such
> > an article, the plaintiffs agreed to sign a settlement permanently
> > ending the suit. (The suit had been dimissed without prejudice by a
> > federal judge in March 1993, which meant that the TM plaintiffs were
> > free to refile it in the future.)
> >
> > For years, Judy Stein, Lawson English, and other TM propagandists have
> > been claiming that TM's suit was "secretly settled."
>
> Actually I never made that claim, as Andrew well knows. I have
> always suspected there was some kind of secret agreement behind
> the scenes, and I've certainly voiced that suspicion, citing
> evidence that suggested there had been.
>
> Andrew has always flatly denied there was any kind of agreement.

Judy lies. I said over and over that there was no settlement, secret or
otherwise, formal or informal.

> Now we find it out was true all along.
>
> We just didn't know what it had involved, an agreement which JAMA
> never intended to honor.
>
> There was a secret,
> > but it wasn't a settlement. The secret was an agreement made by TM
> > plaintiffs not to refile the suit if JAMA published an article submitted
> > by TM authors.
>
> Yeah, it wasn't a settlement, only a conditional agreement about
> the terms for a settlement, which JAMA never intended to fulfill.
> That sure makes us TMers look bad, don't it?

Judy is lying. JAMA did not violate any agreement.

> > In July 1993, TM authors submitted an article to JAMA. It was sent out
> > for review, considered, and rejected. The article was rewritten and
> > resubmitted to JAMA in Dec. 1993. It was similarly peer reviewed,
> > considered, and rejected. The TM plaintiffs did not refile their suit.
> > The suit was never settled.
>
> What a wonderful demonstration of JAMA's integrity. It agreed to
> publish a TM-written article, then refused to do so.

One day, Judy's lies are going to get so big that one is going to stick
in her throat and she will die.

JAMA never agreed to publish the article. JAMA made it clear to the TM plaintiffs that, like all articles submitted to JAMA, the TM manuscript would have to go through normal editorial review. Unless it was of publishable quality, it would have to be rejected. The manuscript submitted was seriously flawed. It was a thinly disguised advertisement for TM. No major medical journal would publish it. JAMA could not publish such a clearly flawed advertorial to make the threat of a $194 million lawsuit go away.

JAMA's only agreement was to do what it always does -- follow its editorial policies. JAMA stood up to TM's bullying and stood by its editorial integrity despite the threat that the TM plaintiffs would hit it again with a $194 million lawsuit.

For some reason, this fact throws Judy into a venom and obscenity-spewing rage. The rest of her vile rant speaks pretty much for itself. And this from a woman who has spent most of her life following the Maharishi's path to Enlightenment.

--Andrew Skolnick
http://nasw.org/users/ASkolnick

> Of course, JAMA knew all along that it wasn't going to publish
> any TM-written article; it signed the agreement in bad faith,
> confident that when its double-dealing became obvious, the TM
> folks wouldn't be able to get it together to refile. It was a
> delaying tactic.
>

"God knows what's going through your crazed mind. You aren't just a thoroughly ugly and reprehensible individual, you're a freaking nutcase."

> Were JAMA's lawyers aware Chopra was in the process of breaking
> with the movement, and that by the time it was clear JAMA had
> reneged, he wouldn't be likely to want to join the suit on TM's
> side any longer?
>
> > TM propagandists got away with this deceit for so long because I was not
> > free to discuss the AMA's actions as long as I worked for JAMA.
>
> No, you scummy asshole, there wasn't any deceit on the TMers'
> parts, only on yours and JAMA's. The rumor that there had been a
> secret agreement, as you have now told us after having denied it
> for years, was absolutely true. Your accusations that we were
> lying were themselves a lie.
>
>
> > Hell, Chopra's attorney even lied to Newsweek that we had settled
> > with Chopra and the other plaintiffs for an undisclosed amount
> > (Oct. 30, 1997, page 57).
>
> I wonder what that article *actually* says.
>
> Does JAMA know you're happily spilling the rotten beans about its
> lack of ethics as fast as you can vomit them up, Andrew, now that
> you no longer have to keep its dirty little secrets in order to
> hang onto your job? Does JAMA know you're busy plastering its
> private business documents on the Web and Usenet?
>
> Are you taking your revenge for having been sacked?
>
> Are you playing both ends against the middle, using the ugly
> facts, on the one hand, to embarrass JAMA, and on the other to
> take yet another swing at TM?
>
> Or are you genuinely proud of what JAMA did?
>
> You indicated in an earlier post you didn't approve of much of
> JAMA's behavior, even found it despicable. Perhaps what you
> despised were the times when JAMA *didn't* behave unethically.
>
> God knows what's going through your crazed mind. You aren't just
> a thoroughly ugly and reprehensible individual, you're a freaking
> nutcase.
>
> What kind of person would *brag* in a public forum about having
> been a party to a subversion of the legal process?
>
> I mean, one tends to assume that even someone whom one knows is a
> chronic, unashamed liar like Andrew has *some* point at which
> conscience and self-respect kick in.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> + Judy Stein * The Author's Friend * jstein@panix.com +
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Original Post: Re: TM bullying of news media
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 10:00:49 -0500
From: "Andrew A. Skolnick"
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental, sci.skeptic