|
[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: Gary, thanks, see within [] The Rodney Yoder trial which may have gone to the jury today or, possibly, not until tomorrow, is a trial by jury. He has been kept interminably based only on psychiatric diagnosis and prognosis (dangerous) for many year. I will be posting the Time magazine article with my comments.] ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary Bell To: fredbaughmanmd@cox.net Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 4:44 PM Subject: Re: RODNEY YODER, THE ONLY MAN IN AMERICA WHO UNDERSTANDS FRAUD OF PSYCHIATRIC "DISEASES" Dr. B: After reading this for the third time I don't know if I understand every verbal twist and turn but I do know that in the US Constitution it states...USC amendment 7 para 1 "the right to trial by jury shall be preserved", the USC framers knew that JURIES bring a quality of mercy and good common sense to the administration of the laws when lawyers and judges forget where justice lies. US Supreme Court Justice Wm. O. Douglas As such I keep wondering why these issues are being presented in front of a JUDGE only? [Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
There is NO administration of common sense when you're in front of a 'stacked deck' . And Psychiatry and Psychology have MORE credibility then a parent whose being accused of abuse (withholding life saving drugs...they're phraseology not mine). We've got to get these trials of parents against Doctors, and School personnel AWAY from the judge only and into (somewhat more) SANE peoples jurisdiction. A jury's hands. Also any judge is REQUIRED to swear allegiance to upholding the State and US Constitutions, and those documents supercede the statutes. Has anyone presented the Article VI of the Constitution "the Supremacy Clause"? The Constitution... shall be the supreme law of the land; and judges in every state shall be bound thereby. Amendment 14...no state shall make or enforce any law privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; or deny any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. What about our children being drugged into a state of death, (loss of life) or diminished capacity, or being denied the liberty to become individuals, or denied the right to NOT be chemically incarcerated. (further loss of liberty) (especially based on UNVALIDATED testing procedures, this also shows the jury these drugs were administered based on fraudulent testing data, and the parents or guardians are now in violation of UCS laws, by following Psych/Psychol. state ordered drugging of their children.) No SANE, RATIONAL jury would let this by. I just can't understand if these arguments were proffered to a "fair and impartial jury", by COMPETENT representation. I think victory would be inevitable. Where else can the problem be, is it in the attorneys hired, are they incompetent, unknowing, uninterested or what? We know the judges want the "status quo". I just keep seeing all these cases go down to defeat and look for the problematic common denominator and say there has to be a solution as the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND IS ON OUR SIDE! Should these be tried in Federal courts instead? Why can't we ever win one...just one? Just my $.02 worth. Respectfully Gary Bell |
Leave a Reply