> > There seems to be some confusion on this: Chopra at the time > > WAS the TMO and he owned MAPI and the Lancaster Foundation. > > jstein wrote: > No, he owned neither, as you know. (And MAPI, of > course, as you know, was not involved in the suit.) > >From what I've read, Chopra founded and owned MAPI and the Lancaster Foundation; Chopra was a plaintive in the suit against JAMA, the AMA, and Skolnick. > Apparently Chopra was a Plaintive in the suit. > > No, he was not a plaintiff in the suit. > According to Chopra's attorney, the case was settled for an undisclosed amount.
> There isn't any confusion about it at all, other than > the confusion you're attempting to create. > >From what I've read, you seem confused. For example, you didn't seem to realize that I was refering to Skolnick's "Hoodwinked" article - that's why this thread is entitled the "JAMA Caper". In addition, you don't seem to want to admit that Chopra sued JAMA when he was the owner of MAPI and the Lancaster Foundation. Apparently the reason Skolnick raised objections was because of Chopra's conflict of interest in MAPI. Go figure. From: Andrew A. Skolnick Date: Mon, Jul 12 1999 12:00 am Groups: alt.meditation.transcendental, sci.skeptic Subject: TM bullying of news media http://tinyurl.com/wcwcx TM apologists continue to lie that their SLAPP suit against the editor of JAMA, the AMA, and me was settled in their effort to discredit JAMA's article exposing the TM mvoement's deceitful marketing tactics. For example, Chopra's attorney even lied to Newsweek that we had settled with Chopra and the other plaintiffs for an undisclosed amount (Newsweek, Oct. 30, 1997, page 57). From: Judy Stein Date: Sun, May 30 1999 12:00 am Groups: alt.meditation.transcendental, sci.skeptic Subject: Move Over Maharishi http://tinyurl.com/worhk At some point after the preliminary injunction ruling, plaintiffs moved to have Deepak Chopra, who had been extensively and viciously disparaged by name in Andrew's article, added as a plaintiff.
