More on the Diploma Questions in Adams v. Gulley, the Case Where a Judge Ordered the Removal of Reddit Criticisms of a Public Commentator

The order: As readers may recall, I've written about a recent California court order that restricted online criticism of one Sarrita Adams. Adams runs Science On Trial, Inc., which "provides forensic consultation services across the United States and the United Kingdom." Adams drew public attention by publicly criticizing the evidence in the 2023 English trial of nurse Lucy Letby, who was convicted of murdering seven infants. Her claims were mentioned in, among other publications, The Times (London), the New York Post, and most recently The New Yorker.

Adams' criticism, however, itself drew criticism, including on Reddit's r/scienceontrial ("This community exists to fact check claims about Science on Trial, its creator Sarrita Adams, and various statements that can be credited to her."). The main poster there has been the pseudonymous Reddit user MrJusticeGossipGirl, apparently a reference to Mr. Justice Goss, the judge in the Letby trial. The posts generally criticize Adams' credentials, views on the Letby trial, responses to critics, and more. (There's also a reddit r/sarritaadams, which points the reader to r/scienceontrial.)

But on June 7, San Francisco County Superior Court Maria Evangelista issued a temporary harassment restraining order (Adams v. Gulley, PDF pp. 42-47) ordering defendant Gulley—who appears to be MrJusticeGossipGirl—

Do not make any social media posts about or impersonating plaintiff and her company Science on Trial on any public or social media platform. All harassing posts shall be removed.

This was done based on a restraining order request filed June 6; it appears that Gulley wasn't given an opportunity to appear in court to oppose the order (this is known in this context as an "ex parte" proceeding). The order was extended for over four months, until mid-October, when the court ultimately vacated it on the grounds that the California courts lack jurisdiction over Gulley, a Pennsylvania resident. I argued here that the order also violated the First Amendment and the California restraining order law.

The diploma: But in the litigation over the order, Gulley's lawyers (at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) alleged that the filings on Adams' side included a seemingly inauthentic diploma:

At the time I posted about that (Oct. 18), I had asked the Cambridge administration (on Oct. 6) whether the diploma was authentic but hadn't gotten an answer. But I finally did get an answer, and here's what the Cambridge people reported that "The attached certificate has not been issued by the University of Cambridge." They specifically noted:

College—There is a spelling discrepancy with the name Caius

Date of Award—29 June 2017—The General Admission ceremony held on this date was for the conferment of Undergraduate and Master of Law degrees only, it would not have been possible to be awarded a Doctorate degree on the given date.

Biochemistry—University degree certificates do not state the subject of study/research undertaken for the degree

They also informed me that Adams had studied for a Ph.D. and submitted a thesis, but didn't complete the expected corrections, and thus never received the Ph.D. (Note that some press accounts that discussed Adams' claims about the Letby case stated that "She has a PhD in biochemistry from Cambridge University, according to her online LinkedIn profile." Her petition in the California case, which she filed on her own behalf, also refers to her as "Dr. Adams.")

The response: When I received the response from Cambridge, I naturally asked Adams for her position on the matter. She didn't respond to me substantively, but she did e-mail Cambridge, cc'ing me, so I thought I'd pass it along as her response:

I received the correspondence below from an individual cyber stalker, by the name Eugene Volokh, who is working with numerous individuals, who are listed in this email, to harass and stalk me online.

The individual in question states that he contacted the University of Cambridge, and that they supplied the information below, which if true would appear to be a flagrant violation of GDPR. As for the content of the information, I cannot confirm its validity as I have not received any such correspondence, despite the claims this information concerns my personal data.

Please confirm with me directly, and I will provide further identifying information, to validate my identity. I am copying in the individuals engaged in this campaign of harassment and stalking such that it is clear that the University has been contacted as it concerns claims of a GDPR breach.

Owing to the ongoing cyberstalking and harassment campaign by Mr Volokh and his associates I politely request that the University only replies to me directly. Mr Volokh is stating he will be publishing claims that he derived the information surround my private information directly from the University of Cambridge. I believe his source is likely to be an individual of the name Richard Gill, as he too has been preoccupied with this stalking campaign.

Further note, I am quite certain this ongoing campaign of harassment is due solely to racial animus, as these individuals are not seeking to employ me, nor have I sought any employment opportunity from them, and I have repeatedly requested that they leave me alone. They appear to want to convince numerous individuals that I have no legitimate scientific expertise!! This is of course a racial trope, and it will not surprise that these individuals are all elder white men. Further, Mr Volokh is based in the United States, and he holds no UK citizenship, nor relationship with the University of Cambridge, he is merely attempting to maintain a smear campaign against me. He does have a history of pursuing and stalking ethnic minority females, as in one case he stalked a woman and exposed the pseudonym she used in legal filings.

Just to be clear:

1. I assume that the Cambridge administration, which responded to my query, is complying with English law on the subject. (I can't speak about that with confidence, not being an expert on the English law of educational records.) In any event, even if they shouldn't have responded to my question (and I have no reason to think that they shouldn't have), that doesn't seem to go to the underlying factual question related to Ms. Adams' credentials.
2. None of this information comes from any Richard Gill; indeed, to my recollection I have never communicated with any Richard Gill on this subject.
3. I an entirely unconcerned with Ms. Adams' race, sex, or any other identity attribute. As readers of this blog know, I have written about many overbroad injunctions that restrict speech, brought by a vast range of plaintiffs (some of those posts related to some of the cases discussed in this article). As to the allegation of my supposedly having "stalked a woman and exposed the pseudonym she used in legal filings," that presumably refers to Luo v. Volokh; you can read that California Court of Appeal opinion yourself and see what the Justices thought of the claims that I stalked or harassed Ms. Luo.
4. The only "other individuals" that I could see "listed" in Ms. Adams' e-mail (besides her own lawyers) as supposedly involved in trying to "harass and stalk" her were Ms. Gulley's lawyers, who were included in the cc line.
5. I can't speak to how much "legitimate scientific expertise" Ms. Adams possesses (and I think none of my posts have sought to opine on that). I am, however, skeptical that she possesses a Ph.D.

A broader perspective: It also seems to me that this situation helps illustrate the dangers of courts blithely accepting requests for harassment restraining orders that restrict public speech. The requests are often presented to the court without a response by the defendant (or, if there is a response, the defendant often doesn't have a lawyer at the time). There is often little opportunity for the court to meaningfully vet the plaintiff's factual assertions, or even to determine whether the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

Yet the orders, though temporary, may be extended for months. And while here the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression successfully interceded pro bono on the defendant's behalf, the result might have been quite different if the defendant hadn't gotten a lawyer: The injunction might well have been extended for five or more years.

Now add to that the tendency to label public criticism "harassment" and "stalking." That is evident in Ms. Adams' e-mail to Cambridge. (Recall that my interaction with Ms. Adams has consisted of writing three posts stemming from Ms. Adams' litigation against Ms. Gulley, see here, here, and here, and talking or corresponding to her with regard to those posts—much the same thing that a newspaper reporter or columnist might do in writing articles about a case.)

But it's not just some litigants' views; some judges seem to fall into it as well. Consider the court's decision to initially grant the order against Ms. Gulley, likewise based largely on Gulley's public posts criticizing Adams, seems to reflect something of the same attitude on the court's part. See, also, e.g., Curcio v. Pels, and many of the cases discussed in my Overbroad Injunctions Against Speech article.

So there's a problem here, I think, going beyond just the possible inaccuracies in claims about Ms. Adams' diploma. I hope publicizing such cases may lead more groups besides FIRE step up to protect defendants' rights in such cases, and may lead courts to be more careful in such cases—to pay more attention to the First Amendment, to personal jurisdiction over the defendants, and to the need for accurate factfinding.