Judge Sanctions Lawyer for Abusive Subpoena of Blogger

Clifford Shoemaker, a Virginia attorney, was reprimanded for issuing an overly burdensome subpoena to blogger Kathleen Seidel.

Published on Feb. 10, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A federal magistrate judge in New Hampshire has sanctioned Virginia attorney Clifford Shoemaker for abusing the legal process by issuing an overly broad subpoena to blogger Kathleen Seidel. The judge found that Shoemaker sought to improperly burden Seidel by demanding extensive documentation related to her website and communications, without any evidence to support his speculations. The judge criticized Shoemaker's efforts to "vilify and demean" Seidel as "unwarranted and unseemly".

Why it matters

This case highlights concerns about the misuse of legal processes to harass and intimidate online critics and bloggers, even when there is no clear justification. The ruling sends a message that judges will not tolerate such abusive tactics, which can have a chilling effect on free speech and open discourse.

The details

Shoemaker issued the subpoena to Seidel, demanding production of documents and a deposition, on the day before he stipulated to dismiss the underlying lawsuit with prejudice. The judge found that Shoemaker made no attempt to avoid imposing an undue burden on Seidel, and instead sought to compel the production of "every scrap of paper" related to her website, tax returns, and communications with the government.

  • The subpoena was issued on February 9, 2026, the day before Shoemaker stipulated to dismiss the underlying lawsuit.
  • The federal magistrate judge issued the sanctions ruling on February 10, 2026.

The players

Clifford Shoemaker

A Virginia attorney who was sanctioned by the court for issuing an abusive subpoena to blogger Kathleen Seidel.

Kathleen Seidel

A blogger who was the target of an overly broad subpoena issued by Clifford Shoemaker, which the court found to be an abuse of the legal process.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Mr. Shoemaker made no attempt to avoid imposing an undue burden or expense on Ms. Seidel. To the contrary, I find that he sought to burden her by requiring production of every scrap of paper related to autism, her web site, her tax returns, and her communications with the government.”

— Federal Magistrate Judge (Likelihood of Confusion)

“His failure to withdraw the subpoena when he clearly knew that suit was over is telling about his motives. His efforts to vilify and demean Ms. Seidel are unwarranted and unseemly.”

— Federal Magistrate Judge (Likelihood of Confusion)

What’s next

The judge's sanctions ruling will likely serve as a deterrent to other lawyers who may be tempted to abuse the legal process to harass online critics and bloggers.

The takeaway

This case underscores the importance of protecting free speech and open discourse online, even when the targets of criticism are powerful individuals or organizations. Judges have shown a willingness to push back against abusive litigation tactics that aim to silence or intimidate bloggers and other online commentators.