Hey Webmasters! New Photo Album Service Launched - Check it out!
|
|
|
OML Archives-
Subject: Re: Court records WR vs USA - Mon, 29 Jan 1996 03:30:43
-0500
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 03:30:43 -0500
To: orgonomy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Subject: Re: Court records WR vs USA
From: James DeMeo <demeo@mind.net>
Sender: owner-orgonomy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Kenn Thomas wrote:
He also mentions, however, that 18 scientists protested the
>burning of Reich's books, but he does not cite a source. I checked
>Greenfield's book and couldn't find mention of this. Can anyone help me out?
This is probably the "amicus brief" filed by E. F. Baker and other medical
co-workers of Reich during the period of his legal appeals. They asserted
that if Reich's discoveries on the accumulator were forbidden from use by
medical doctors, this would deprive them of a very efficacious and
beneficial therapy. And so they appealed to the courts not to forbid the
open use of the accumulator. Interestingly, as I understand it, the court
denied their legal petition, ruling that the court had no opinion about
what other medical doctors did with the accumulator. They only were
concerned with what Wilhelm Reich did. So Reich went to prison for
"contempt of court" for the technical violation of the original injunction,
while also, in a very technical manner, the court cleared the way for other
physicians to openly use the accumulator. This aspect is a real shocker,
for what it suggests: That the courts were in fact more interested to "get
Reich" than to stop the open use of the accumulator. That for nearly 40
years, there has existed a rather clear and large legal opening by which
the medical followers of Reich could have defended against any subsequent
FDA challenge against use of the accumulator.
JD.
--- from list orgonomy@lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Many thanks for Geocities providing this free space
Get your own Free Home Page
bravenet.com