Lawsuit update


As promised, I’m providing an update on my lawsuit against Gina Crosley-Corcoran.

The short version: After several delays, Gina’s lawyer filed a motion to dismiss based on jurisdiction, just as we expected. The issue is whether I can sue Gina in Massachusetts or must I sue her in Illinois. There is case law on both sides of the argument and, while the balance seems to be in favor of keeping the case in Massachusetts, there is no way to know what the judge will decide. This is a technical issue and has no relationship to the merits of the actual case.

The longer version: Despite the fact that the motion to dismiss is a technical issue, Gina’s lawyer felt compelled to file a document laced with ad hominem attacks. Here is the Motion to Dismiss, complete with exhibits:

The motion begins:

The Plaintiff in this action, Amy Tuteur, is a bully.

She is, to be sure, a modern-day bully; a “cyber bully,” who spews her venom over the Internet, rather than kicking sand on a playground, but she is a bully nonetheless. Ms. Tuteur, a former physician who is no longer licensed to practice medicine (and yet who identifies herself as an obstetrician gynecologist on her websites), runs a number of blogs, including one entitled “The Skeptical OB,” where she is something of a niche bully…

Curiously, the motion says nothing about the fact that the lawsuit was filed because Gina was abusing the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) in a avowed effort to censor me by contriving to keep webhosts from hosting The Skeptical OB. Instead, the motion states:

This lawsuit represents another form of Ms. Tuteur’s bullying. The Defendant in this action, Gina Crosley-Corcoran, is a mother of three young children, a graduate student, a practicing doula, and (most importantly for the purposes of this motion) a resident of Illinois. A proponent of parents’ right to choose home birth, Ms. Crosley-Corcoran has often found herself the target of Ms. Tuteur’s ire…

In support of her ad hominem attacks, Gina’s lawyer included several of my posts in the exhibits, though curiously neglected to include the original post in question (Questions for The Feminist Breeder). He also fails to mention the multiple DMCA notice filings, the efforts to solicit others to send DMCA filings, etc. Therefore, it appears that Gina has no idea why she was sued, beyond my supposed effort to bully her.

I guess her lawyer has not seen what Gina has been writing lately on her own blog.

… It seems like every single time I’ve ever tried to stand up for myself in this blogging gig, It has backfired. TERRIBLY.

Example: After three years of being non-stopped harassed by that psycho ex-doctor Amy Tuteur, I finally stood up for myself, scraped together just enough cash to hire a lawyer for a few hours of work, and tried to get her to stop. She responded by using her millions to file a federal lawsuit against me that is FULL of outright lies and speculation, designed only to bankrupt my family and ruin my life. Even if/when I WIN against this insanity, the court costs will destroy my family finances forever. I will probably never be able to afford the kind of lawyer I need to actually defend myself In court, so she could simply win a “default” judgement (because I’m just too poor to fight this.) That’s how this shit works. She knows that. That’s why she’s doing it.

But it’s my fault – you know why? I should have kept my fucking mouth shut. I should have gone on ignoring the attacks like I’d done for THREE years prior. Any time I try to respond – try to defend myself – it comes right back to bite me in the ass…

… So, here I am, wrapped up in the aftermath of yet another highly publicized incident that people will use for years to come to paint me as the asshole.

I’m NOT an asshole. I AM a fucking idiot.

I can only agree.


Addendum: I’ve just filed a motion to strike. You can read it at

The key points:

As discussed herein, Defendant Gina Crosley-Corcoran’s Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Her Motion To Dismiss contains numerous immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous allegations that are highly prejudicial and have nothing to do with this action or, more specifically, Defendant’s claim that this Court lacks jurisdiction over her. Dr. Tuteur seeks to have Defendant’s improper allegations stricken from Defendant’s Memorandum or, in the alternative, to have Defendant’s Memorandum stricken in its entirety pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)…

Crosley-Corcoran’s repeated name-calling is a transparent attempt to cast Dr. Tuteur in a disparaging light. Crosley-Corcoran’s insulting language is not only an attempt to denigrate Dr. Tuteur’s character, it evinces complete disregard for the appropriate level of decorum expected of parties when appearing before a federal court.

Needless to say, none of the Improper Allegations bears any possible relation to Crosley- Corcoran’s arguments that she is not subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. For instance, it is unfathomable how Crosley-Corcoran’s personal feelings about Dr. Tuteur translate to any cognizable basis for her assertion that there is no statutory or Constitutional basis for the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court. Similarly, Crosley-Corcoran’s apparent view that Dr. Tuteur is a “bully” is not relevant to the claims asserted in the Complaint or any conceivable defenses thereto.

Latest update: Gina’s response, which is basically more of the same: