Posted by

[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
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 4:44 PM

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:
This trial, as I have said above, is by jury]

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 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.


Gary Bell

Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)