textfiles/bbs/KEELYNET/UNCLASS/medright.asc

463 lines
24 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

2021-04-15 13:31:59 -05:00
(word processor parameters LM=8, RM=75, TM=2, BM=2)
Taken from KeelyNet BBS (214) 324-3501
Sponsored by Vangard Sciences
PO BOX 1031
Mesquite, TX 75150
There are ABSOLUTELY NO RESTRICTIONS
on duplicating, publishing or distributing the
files on KeelyNet except where noted!
October 30, 1992
MEDRIGHT.ASC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This file shared with KeelyNet courtesy of Richard Kalin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Note : KeelyNet is primarily an Alt-Tech board, so this is rare!
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE TAKEN AS LEGAL COUNSEL OR
OTHERWISE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. IT IS PRESENTED AS OPINION
ONLY AND KEELYNET, THE KEELYNET SYSOPS AND THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR WILL
NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE READER THAT
MIGHT BE BASED ON THE INFORMATION IN THIS ARTICLE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The following letter appeared in the Fall 1992 quarterly
Journal of the American Society of Dowsers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Editor:
Thank you for your nice note in answer to my letter to the American
Society of Dowsers.
As I previously stated in my letter, it is completely proper for the
Society to have an official stance regarding the practice of
healing. It is another matter completely to fail to uphold the
Constitution of this wonderful country.
It is true that there are and have been many instances in which
caring individuals have been brought to trial, and even sent to
prison. Incarceration of patriots in every country is not new.
However, the tide is turning in this country for two reasons.
1. More people are becoming aware of their Constitutional
rights, and
2. the abject failure of allopathic medicine in anything other
than emergency conditions.
It is area number one, above, that I am addressing here. In
October, 1990, Dr. Ede Koenig, DN, PhD was indicted by the
California Attorney General for practicing medicine without a
license. She immediately contacted Conrad LeBeau, who, like myself,
has been urging people to use the 9th and 10th Amendments to the
Constitution, as well as the State Constitutions, and, instead of
trying to defend one's self against the charge of practicing
medicine without a license, simply say the government has never been
given the power to license anything!
For the federal government to license would require a constitutional
convention, and a proposed amendment submitted to each state
Page 1
legislature, and two-thirds of the state legislatures would have to
OK the measure.
For the states themselves to license, if such a provision was not
written in the original state constitution, a measure would have to
be presented to the state's people, and a state-wide referendum
taken to the people for a vote.
So, back to Ede Koenig. The judge dismissed the case and the state
said it intended to refile charges. That was over 17 months ago, and
no charges have been refiled. In 1989 the Arizona legislature was
poised to pass a law restricting anyone but dieticians from giving
nutritional advice. The National Health Federation sent Clinton
Miller and others down, and they informed the legislature that this
was a restriction of the Constitutional rights of the people. The
measure was overwhelmingly defeated.
In 1991 the Oklahoma House of Representatives passed a bill that
would fine anyone making dentures (except a dentist) $25,000. I sat
down and wrote a letter to every state senator telling them that
such a law could be the cause of them being sued, since there are
federal laws that fine and imprison anyone conspiring to deny
someone their civil or Constitutional rights. I received several
letters from state senators thanking me. The measure was soundly
defeated in the Senate.
Now, I could go on and on, telling of instances in which the FDA and
the AMA has been slapped down in the courts. The point of all this
is that it all depends on how you plead. And, be warned! It will
be very difficult to get a lawyer to plead the constitutional issue,
since they, the lawyers, WANT licensing! They use this to eliminate
competition. So they won't ever tell you it is your constitutional
right. They will say it is against the law, but the law is illegal.
You must ignore the charge of practicing medicine without a license.
You must say that this is your right under the Constitution. You
must say that the America Medical Association is a trade
association, and to allow them to determine who can practice any
type of healing art is a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Laws,
and a violation of the State Constitution which prohibits the state
establishing a monopoly. OK?
There are some losses and some wins on both sides. The main thing
to remember is that if good people do nothing, evil will invariably
triumph. In this case the loss might well be your life!
We are fast approaching epidemics in both cancer and AIDS. In the
face of public admission of the AMA that they have absolutely no
cure for AIDS, and with the news media just beginning to break the
news that the AMA has once again lied to the public about the
extremely contagious nature of AIDS, public outrage with the AMA is
at an all time high. Anyone who has any ability to cure AIDS and
cancer is now being sought after. And in the realm of dowsing, we
can get the answer as to what will cure AIDS. In fact, we already
have dowsed out cures and used them successfully.
How can anyone with any type of healing ability stand by and watch
millions of people die, when he knows how to cure that individual?
Will you? If they are going to put people like myself, and you
Page 2
other dowsers who are healers, in prison and allow thieves and
murderers to go free, perhaps we would be better off there. We'd
be much safer!
Well, as Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death!"
Charles Hallmark
Sulphur, Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This was such an intriguing letter that I could not help but call up
the writer out in Oklahoma on Saturday, October 30.
Mr. Hallmark is into homeopathic and energetic type healing
techniques and quite an interesting fellow. We talked for over an
hour and decided to swap some information in the field of biology.
As you can see, I pulled up the two Amendments (9 and 10) specified
and they are quoted below. I could not see the relationship that
Mr. Hallmark found to make it illegal to prosecute a US citizen for
"practicing medicine without a license", so I called him up for
clarification.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
As you know, we at KeelyNet rarely get involved in such issues but
this letter was so fascinating that it demanded a look at the US
Constitution and the ramifications of such interpretations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The comments that follow each of these Articles are mine (Jerry) and
are my interpretation of the Amendment aided by Mr. Hallmarks
comments. I asked Mr. Hallmark if he could recommend a good book on
the Constitution with all the ramifications of its various articles
to modern society, but he said he knew of no such book.
Although a man by the name of Mike Brown was placed in prison and
during that time studied the Constition in some detail. He now
travels the country helping people involved in Constitutional rights
violations with great success. Mr. Hallmark said that Mike Brown
sometimes writes articles that appear in A.C.R.E.S USA out of
Missouri.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLE IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
-----------------------------------
Comment : In the case of Article 9, it clearly states that just
because CERTAIN RIGHTS are listed in the US Constitution
does not mean that there are not MANY OTHER rights that
US citizens AUTOMATICALLY enjoy and that are GUARANTEED
by their specific OMISSION from the U.S. Constitution.
And that none of the rights so listed in the US
Constitution could be used to refuse or otherwise
diminish these Constitutionally UNSPECIFIED RIGHTS.
The fact that it is NOT SPECIFIED in the Constitution
DOES NOT MEAN that people CANNOT PRACTICE medicine, so by
the innate lack of a US Constitutional law PROHIBITING
the practice of medicine without a license, no one can be
LEGALLY held or convicted on such a charge.
As the author claims, the FEDERAL government does not
Page 3
CLAIM THE RIGHT to issue licenses and therefore cannot
hold it's citizens to account for carrying out activities
which are NOT EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED OR OTHERWISE
RESTRICTED by the U.S. Constitution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLE X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
-----------------------------------
Comment : As to Article 10, the States are not PRECLUDED from
instituting such laws UNLESS PROHIBITED from doing so by
the US Constitution.
Therefore, THE STATES have the right to make AMENDMENTS
to their OWN STATE CONSTITUTION prohibiting the practice
of medicine or other such restrictive amendments.
This gives to each state the power to be as restrictive
or free as the populace of that state will allow.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
So, the outcome of such a charge as practicing medicine without a
license or other charges would rely on a specific Constitutional
Amendment prohibiting such an activity in either the US Constitution
or in the Constitution of the State in which the offense took place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Another interesting point brought out by Mr. Hallmark in our phone
discussion was in regard to the ability of a jury to absolutely
INVALIDATE a law that they felt was unjust or illegal. This would
seem to mean that a jury could absolutely ERASE A LAW that was
passed by the state or the United States SIMPLY BY DECLARING THAT
THEY FOUND IT ILLEGAL. And once this was done, a precedent had been
set that essentially DESTROYED THE VALIDITY OF A GIVEN LAW and its
subsequent invocation in further or future "violations".
If this is true, then once such an event had transpired, any
subsequent invocation of that law would equate to A VIOLATION of the
Constitutional rights (either State or Federal, depending on which
Constitution or Amendment to that Constitution applied) of the
accused.
It then follows that any civil servant, be it judge, policeman,
court officers, etc. would be in direct violation of the
Constitution and thus be subject to legal action for such
Constitutional violation against another citizen of the United
States. (see Article VI below)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLE VI GENERAL PROVISIONS
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United
States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall
be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall
be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the
supreme Law of the Land;
and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
Page 4
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
Members of the several State Legislatures,
and all executive and judicial Officers,
both of the United States and of the several States,
shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation,
to support this Constitution;
but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to
any Office or public Trust under the United States.
there are
--------------------------------------------------------------------
As Mr. Hallmarks letter to his local Oklahoma Senators recounted and
which put the fear of God into them by the simple reminder :
there are federal laws that fine and imprison ANYONE
CONSPIRING (devising laws) to DENY someone
their civil or Constitutional rights....
(backed up by the aforementioned Article VI
of the United States Constitution)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I have also been told by other sources that if the accused, a
representative of the accused or an outside party finds that a
precedent is BEING USED which has either
BEEN INVALIDATED by a jury decision
OR is in direct violation
of EITHER the US Constitution
or a State Constitution,
AND makes the policemen, court officers,
judges and other involved public servants
AWARE OF THE VIOLATION of the precedent
or Constitutional violation,
then ALL THOSE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, LAWMEN AND JUDICIARY ASSOCIATED
WITH THE CASE ARE BREAKING THE LAW AND THEREFORE OFFERING THEMSELVES
UP TO LEGAL ACTION DIRECTED TOWARDS THEM ON THE PART OF THE ACCUSED!
The case is also automatically invalidated and THEREFORE ILLEGAL
even if the policemen, court officers, judges or other involved
public servants CONTINUE TO PURSUE legal action.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that the following is not a DIRECT TRANSCRIPT of the
conversation because I don't remember all the details but here goes.
Mr. Hallmark said that in the 14th or 15th century, one of the
English Kings had a falling out with a group of people. He then
made a law that would directly affect these people and put it into
motion. The group were brought to court using that new law as the
basis of the case. The jurors listened to the law and the arguments
Part 5
of the group, eventually deciding that the law was unfair, unjust
and illegal.
The King was outraged and placed the jurors in prison until they
decided to carry out a sentence based on his new law which would
result in the imprisonment of the targeted group of people. The
jurors refused to comply and as time went on, the public outcry
became so great, the King was forced to release the jurors and
rescind his new law to prevent open rebellion.
Similar cases have since arisen in various countries and in each
case, the jurors decided that a law was unjust and it automatically
became invalid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoting Mr. Hallmarks letter again :
Use of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution, as well as
the State Constitutions should be used as a defense,
INSTEAD OF TRYING TO DEFEND ONE'S SELF AGAINST THE CHARGE OF
PRACTICING MEDICINE WITHOUT A LICENSE,
simply say
the government has NEVER BEEN GIVEN THE POWER
TO LICENSE ANYTHING!
For the federal government to license would require a constitutional
convention, and a proposed amendment submitted to each state
legislature, and two-thirds of the state legislatures would have to
OK the measure.
For the states themselves to license, if such a provision was not
written in the original state constitution, a measure would have to
be presented to the state's people, and a state-wide referendum
taken to the people for a vote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
So, I suggest you study the Constitution and Amendments of your
State as well as those of the United States to determine the degree
of control your particular environment has on your actions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
One more thing that bothers me intensely. Why does everyone refer
to the United States and its government as a Democracy? When it was
clearly in the Constitution to be a REPUBLIC?
The dictionary definitions are quite distinct and specific for each
form of government :
republic - a state with sovereign power vested in
representatives of the people, chosen by them and
responsible to them
democracy - ruled by the people
In effect, democracy can be interpreted as MOB RULE without benefit
of the representatives specifically ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE.
People need to get out of the habit of referring to the United
Page 6
States as "DEMOCRATIC" unless we actually take steps to change our
system of government. It is a decided error and quite incorrect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Another thing that confirms the existence of the United States as
being a REPUBLIC - the Pledge of Allegiance specifically states:
I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of
America, and TO THE REPUBLIC for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
As final proof that the United States is in fact a REPUBLIC and NOT
a DEMOCRACY, read the following.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLE IV RELATION OF THE STATES TO EACH OTHER
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in
this Union
a Republican Form of Government,
and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and
on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive
(when the Legislature cannot be convened) against
domestic Violence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
That's about the extent of this little diatribe but I found it quite
interesting to look up the details and wish to thank Mr. Hallmark
for his letter to the American Dowsing Society and our follow up
phone calls.
Admittedly, there are bound to be some errors in the above
interpretations and I would be most pleased to entertain a brief and
concise description of what they might be and what is IN FACT
correct.
At this time, I find no error in the basic premise regarding the
practice of medicine without a license as authorized by the United
States Constitution by specific OMISSION.
Again, this does not apply to ALL States as each can alter its
Constitution to encompass whatever the people will tolerate.
An excellent opportunity presents itself here. It would entail the
collection of all such Constitutional Article Violations and their
case histories as well as how they could BE SUCCESSFULLY APPLIED for
defense against such charges. This would also include a collection
of precedents in history and as overturned by various Juries around
the country (assuming this aspect is correct). Think what it would
mean to offer a book with detailed legal information on this
subject. Fame, fortune and a grateful public AWAITS!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have comments or other information relating to such topics
as this paper covers, please upload to KeelyNet or send to the
Vangard Sciences address as listed on the first page.
Thank you for your consideration, interest and support.
Jerry W. Decker.........Ron Barker...........Chuck Henderson
Vangard Sciences/KeelyNet
If we can be of service, you may contact
Jerry at (214) 324-8741 or Ron at (214) 242-9346
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 7