(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