From the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which represented defendant Amy Gulley (click on the link above for a version with many more links):
In August 2023, a British court convicted nurse Lucy Letby of murdering seven children and attempting to murder six more. The trial garnered international media attention. When Sarrita Adams — a British expat living in California — questioned the scientific evidence behind the conviction. Claiming to hold a Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge, Adams set up a website questioning the evidence, sought to submit a friend-of-the-court brief to the British court, and began fundraising to “aid in the upcoming appeal for Lucy Letby” — even starting a for-profit company, “Science on Trial, Inc.”
British media outlets and internet users questioned the credibility of Adams’s claimed credentials and expertise. Some pointed out a California appellate court opinion stating that Adams had not completed her Ph.D. as of November 2017 and questioned Adams’ fundraising efforts. Amy Gulley, a Pennsylvania resident, started a subreddit — r/scienceontrial — critical of Adams and her company, and criticized them on X (formerly Twitter).
In June 2024, Adams sued Gulley in California — a state Gulley had never even visited, three time zones away from her home on the east coast. Adams alleged that Gulley was “harassing” and “stalking” Adams, and “impersonating” Science on Trial, Inc., by using its name on a subreddit. Central to Adams’s claims was her allegation that Gulley “lied about [Adams’] educational qualifications . . . from the University of Cambridge[.]”
Adams obtained a restraining order — without a hearing — from the San Francisco court, which ordered Gulley: “Do not make any social media posts about or impersonate [Adams] and the company Science on Trial on any public or social media platform.”
An order prohibiting future speech is a prior restraint — the “most serious” type of infringement on First Amendment rights. FIRE and California attorney Matthew Strugar came to Gulley’s defense. We filed two motions:
- A motion to quash, challenging the California court’s jurisdiction over Amy Gulley, a Pennsylvania resident who had never been to California. The Constitution’s due process guarantees means that a state court does not have jurisdiction over someone who lacks “minimum contacts” with that state. If criticizing someone online meant that person could sue you where they happen to live, a SLAPP plaintiff could force you to hire lawyers to defend yourself in a far-away court — and that can chill protected speech.
- An anti-SLAPP motion. A “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation,” or SLAPP, is a lawsuit meant to chill protected expression by using the legal process as a cudgel: Even if the person who filed the lawsuit loses, they accomplish their goal of making you spend time and money defending your rights in court, making it costly to criticize them — and encouraging self-censorship. California is one of 34 states that tries to mitigate these costs by providing an early way to end lawsuits targeting protected speech. Anti-SLAPP motions require a plaintiff to show proof of their claims early in a lawsuit. If they cannot, they have to pay the defendant’s attorneys’ fees. That is a way to prevent people from using the legal process itself to deter criticism.
The “temporary” restraining order was repeatedly extended over the course of 115 days — without a hearing…. On September 30, 2024, the court held a hearing, ultimately granting the motion to quash. The court described the anti-SLAPP motion as “compelling,” but declined to rule on its merits because the court determined it did not have jurisdiction. After 115 days, the prior restraint was dissolved.
Prior restraints are among the most pernicious forms of censorship because they halt speech before it occurs. The threats they pose to freedom of speech are exacerbated when they are issued without a hearing — or force you to defend your constitutional rights in a far-away court. In taking cases like this, FIRE makes it harder for people to use the costly legal system as a way to harass their critics.
The substantive filings in the case are available here.
Here, by the way, is an interesting factual allegation from FIRE’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Special Motion To Strike:
i. The diploma Adams offers from Cambridge University’s Gonville
and “Cauis” [sic] College is of dubious authenticity.Adams now testifies she “possess[es] a PhD in Biochemistry from Cambridge University,” submitting a diploma that purports to be dated June 29, 2017. Yet the diploma Adams proffers here bears unsettling indicia it is not authentic.
Foremost is the spelling of the college’s name—the diploma states it is from Cambridge University’s “GONVILLE AND CAUIS COLLEGE.” But that flips the letters in the name of “Gonville and Caius College.”
The diploma also purports to be signed by the University’s Registrary, Jonathan Nicholls. But Nicholls retired from Cambridge University on December 31, 2016—six months before the diploma’s date. And photographs of the June 29, 2017, ceremony—posted by the College itself—show diplomas were signed by Nicholls’s successor, Acting Registrary Emma Rampton.
ii. Adams is judicially estopped from claiming she was awarded a PhD in June 2017.
Then there is the date on the diploma. In November 2017—five months after the diploma’s “29 June 2017” date—Adams testified she had not completed her PhD.
On November 7, 2017, Adams testified in her divorce trial that she did not know when she expected to be able to complete her PhD, as she had to “rewrite the entirety of my thesis.” And she told the court point-blank she had not completed her PhD:
THE COURT: Ma’am, you’re seeking to complete your Ph.D. and you’re finishing up your thesis; correct?
[ADAMS]: Yes.
Judicial estoppel bars Adams from contradicting her prior testimony. The doctrine prevents litigants from playing “fast and loose” with the courts by asserting inconsistent positions. Here, Adams has taken inconsistent positions in judicial proceedings, asserting both that she did not and did have a PhD in November 2017. She was successful in her prior position, as the Alameda court concluded she was entitled to spousal support because her “work prospects” were “limited” until she completed her PhD. Adams cannot now abandon that position even if it were true.
Adams’ counsel filed a motion to strike the reply, arguing that the reply introduced new arguments and exhibits and seeking leave to file a sur-reply, but (as I read it) the motion didn’t itself respond substantively to Gulley’s factual allegations. I emailed Adams’ counsel Monday to ask them if they had a statement on the allegations, but haven’t heard back from them. Here’s the alleged diploma, from an attachment to Adams’ opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion:
Gulley is represented by Adam Steinbaugh, Colin McDonell, Gabe Walters, and JT Morris (FIRE) and Matthew Strugar.
This post was originally published on here
